"Just War Theory". According to The "Just War Theory" would War With N. Korea be justifiable?

[ThatDude30]

Any preemptive strike on the socialist country would be under the theory that the causalities of the preemptive strike would be smaller than future casualties of not doing anything now. NK's nuclear arsenal will only continue to grow, if we don't stop it.

I don't think the US is yet in any nuke danger from the NK, but that'll change.

If they keep letting Kim Jong- UN get away with his threats and missile testing it will get to the point when that idiot Kim Jong-UN actually tries to nuke us. I mean that's all they are probably doing and been doing, increasing military power, weapons, and testing. They are eager and determined and with the combination of authority and power that can result in massive chaos and tragedy.

 

[JGalt]

If and when we do go to war with NK or any other Marxist cesspool run by despots, can we start by eleminating their most destructive allie?

The American main stream media and the left wing losers that pass along their warped American hating bullshit.

Yeah. I'm sure they'll all volunteer to be the point man.

Not.

 

[whitehall]

Why didn't lefties ask that question when Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless country in freaking Europe into the stone age when he was literally caught with his pants down in the Oval Office?

 

[sakinago]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

 

[JGalt]

Any preemptive strike on the socialist country would be under the theory that the causalities of the preemptive strike would be smaller than future casualties of not doing anything now. NK's nuclear arsenal will only continue to grow, if we don't stop it.

I don't think the US is yet in any nuke danger from the NK, but that'll change.

If they keep letting Kim Jong- UN get away with his threats and missile testing it will get to the point when that idiot Kim Jong-UN actually tries to nuke us. I mean that's all they are probably doing and been doing, increasing military power, weapons, and testing. They are eager and determined and with the combination of authority and power that can result in massive chaos and tragedy.

We've been letting them get away with it ever since the Korean War ended: They rattle their swords, we reciprocate by sending them food, supplies, and equipment.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter worked out a deal in the 90's that gave North Korea $4 billion dollar in aid and to provide them with two light-water nuclear reactors...

CLINTON APPROVES A PLAN TO GIVE AID TO NORTH KOREANS

 

[ThatDude30]

If and when we do go to war with NK or any other Marxist cesspool run by despots, can we start by eleminating their most destructive allie?

The American main stream media and the left wing losers that pass along their warped American hating bullshit.

If? No its when. You think Kim-Jong is going to calmly back down and admit defeat? "You know what America I'm sorry I don't know what I was thinking, N. Korea and I bow to you and we will comply 100%". No, the longer he keeps getting away with taunting America, is just buying Kim-Jong time to develop that warhead with the ability to reach the US.

I can see if a country was threatening to stop trade routes or threaten to imprison all Americans or even just saying they will go to war with us. But when you have a nutcase that is the leader of a country and has a military all for him saying that he is going to nuke America and continuing to threaten and taunt America, just for the threat to nuke I think is a reason we shouldn't take Kim-Jongs threats lightly.

Yea there will be casualties if we strike first but the longer we take to strike I'm sure they will keep killing S. Koreans and who ever else they have beef with and if they do strike us first, it will be devastating to America. In the long run I think there would be less casualties that aren't N. Korean if the US would strike first and strike hard and show him that America isn't to be taken lightly and that we are not the country to mess with.

 

[BulletProof]

We've been letting them get away with it ever since the Korean War ended: They rattle their swords, we reciprocate by sending them food, supplies, and equipment.

Yes, NK has recieved a lot of aid. Foreign aid (with the exception of helping in great and momentary emergencies) just enables and perpetuates the problems that caused the need for the aid in the first place. The US shouldn't be giving any country welfare aid.

 

[ThatDude30]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

 

[TomParks]

You need to weaken them down then strike the hell out of them. It needs to be sooner than later

 

[TomParks]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

If they strike Seoul the artillery would be neutralized fairly quick. As posted on here artillery alone cant destroy the city.

 

[ThatDude30]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

Cant worry about Seoul. What if he does develop a nuclear warhead that will be able to reach American soil? N. Korea will strike Seoul no matter what. If we strike first what do you think N. Korea going to do? Strike Seoul in hopes of The US to back off. If N. Korea strikes first, Seoul probably will be the first to feel it. If we wait to long Seoul will feel it. No matter what Seoul is going to feel it. The question is how can we reduce the amount of casualties while taking care of the N. Korean issue?

In regards to your question about anyone finding it odd that all of a sudden they made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program when trump came along? Well everyone in the world knows how trump is, and maybe Kim-Jong knew that he could instigate trump and have everyone thinking he is a fool. Or it is what it is.

 

[BulletProof]

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

The thing about belligerent assholes is that eventually they follow through on their threats. And, letting NK strike first will be much worse than a preemptive attack. Still, there probably is some recourse other than an attack. I'm sure we could get China to be much more cooperative with us in pressuring NK.

It was stupid in the past giving an aid to a socialist country. NK needs to chocked, even if it means mass suffering for the already suffering NK people. It can only get better after it gets worse.

 

[ThatDude30]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

If they strike Seoul the artillery would be neutralized fairly quick. As posted on here artillery alone cant destroy the city.

What we would have to do if we were to strike first would be to evacuate as many innocent civilians of Seoul as quickly and quietly as we can without or before Kim-Jong becomes aware. Have American military secure the city with defensive weaponry and artillery outside the city and on N. Korean border. We would have to attack from the sea and have strategic simultaneous multiple airstrikes and military ready to defend the south and advance from all angles as quickly as possible. America would have to neutralize N. Korea Fast because they aren't going down without a fight and attack any country close to them that are involved

 

[sakinago]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

If they strike Seoul the artillery would be neutralized fairly quick. As posted on here artillery alone cant destroy the city.

It’s mobile artillery, backed up with plenty of SAM defense. Even if we take out half very quickly, that’s still a tremendous amount of death upon Seoul to consider. And then you have to worry about some short range middle launch of a nuke on Seoul. As well as the longer range nukes being sent out to Guam, Japan, Australia, and Hawaii. They can cause a lot of damage, I feel like we have an answer for a good bit, I however feel like we do not have an answer for enough of it. If we had, I’m sure NK would not have been kicked down the road like it has the past 30-40 years.

 

[sakinago]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

If they strike Seoul the artillery would be neutralized fairly quick. As posted on here artillery alone cant destroy the city.

What we would have to do if we were to strike first would be to evacuate as many innocent civilians of Seoul as quickly and quietly as we can without or before Kim-Jong becomes aware. Have American military secure the city with defensive weaponry and artillery outside the city and on N. Korean border. We would have to attack from the sea and have strategic simultaneous multiple airstrikes and military ready to defend the south and advance from all angles as quickly as possible. America would have to neutralize N. Korea Fast because they aren't going down without a fight and attack any country close to them that are involved

But then you got China saying they will step in if we preemptively strike...which is what makes NK such a good attack dog for China. Crazy enough to bark like a rabid animal that China can deny having control, at the same time they have a loose leash on them, and will give the scent of who they want them to bark at, but not sic them on until they’re ready.

 

[TomParks]

The "Just War Theory" is a doctrine to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.

The "Just War Theory" postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option.

There are two primary sets of criteria, First establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and the second is establishing jus in bello ( The right conduct within war). Recent years, some theorist, have proposed a third category with in the "Just War Theory", Just post bellum(ending a war).

According to the "Just War Theory", waging war against N. Korea, Trump would need evidence to meet all the criteria of jus ad bellum (The right to go to war).

jus ad bellum (The right to go to war) criteria
Just cause
-The reason to go to war needs to be just, cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.
-innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

Comparative Justice
-while there my be rights and wrongs on all sides of conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.

Compete Authority
-Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intentions
-force maybe used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
-Arms may not be used in a futile cause when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Last Resort
-Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

Proportionality
-The anticipated benefits of waging war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self defense, or in defense of another( with sufficient evidence).


So according to the "Just War Theory" does Trump have evidence that meets all the criteria needed to wage war on N. Korea?

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

If they strike Seoul the artillery would be neutralized fairly quick. As posted on here artillery alone cant destroy the city.

What we would have to do if we were to strike first would be to evacuate as many innocent civilians of Seoul as quickly and quietly as we can without or before Kim-Jong becomes aware. Have American military secure the city with defensive weaponry and artillery outside the city and on N. Korean border. We would have to attack from the sea and have strategic simultaneous multiple airstrikes and military ready to defend the south and advance from all angles as quickly as possible. America would have to neutralize N. Korea Fast because they aren't going down without a fight and attack any country close to them that are involved

But then you got China saying they will step in if we preemptively strike...which is what makes NK such a good attack dog for China. Crazy enough to bark like a rabid animal that China can deny having control, at the same time they have a loose leash on them, and will give the scent of who they want them to bark at, but not sic them on until they’re ready.

Step in and do what? The Chinese depend on our economy to survive and would commit suicide regardless of what liberals think.

I still believe if we attack NK the soldiers will surrender......the regime is cracking

 

[sakinago]

There’s another variable when considering NK. That fact that they WILL destroy Seoul SK, using conventional mobile artillery. Within an hour. I don’t think we really have a counter to that and can prevent that. If we do have a way, we are going to need to deal with NK sooner or later. How we deal with them could mean many things. But if we can somehow spare Seoul and the 10 million souls there in a preemptive strike, I’m ok with that.

Here’s what’s up with NK. Does anyone not find it odd that they all of a sudden made huge strides in their nuclear ICMB program in the matter of only a year? Does anyone find it convenient that these huge strides, and overly aggressive behavior (in recent memory) just happen to come along with trumps election. It was no secret that trump was totally against China in the campaign...now he’s not...what’s changed??? It’s a very easy connect the dots here.

If there were a way to secure Seoul and evacuate the entire city as quietly as possible without Kim-Jong knowing in a matter of time that is quick enough so that we could immediately attack and if N. Korea were to attack Seoul in response for America attacking them, the city would be empty and there would be mainly property damage. I honestly think that one day N. Korea might just attack Seoul to initiate increased conflict with America, to egg us on.

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

There are going to be casualties and that is unfortunate, but that is the effect of war. What way would result in less casualties? I believe the longer we wait the more casualties there will be. Seoul is going to feel it either way, we cant focus on that because if N. Korea does develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American Land, then the amount of damage and casualties will be devastating and Seoul probably will get hit to. So either way Seoul isn't safe.

If they strike Seoul the artillery would be neutralized fairly quick. As posted on here artillery alone cant destroy the city.

What we would have to do if we were to strike first would be to evacuate as many innocent civilians of Seoul as quickly and quietly as we can without or before Kim-Jong becomes aware. Have American military secure the city with defensive weaponry and artillery outside the city and on N. Korean border. We would have to attack from the sea and have strategic simultaneous multiple airstrikes and military ready to defend the south and advance from all angles as quickly as possible. America would have to neutralize N. Korea Fast because they aren't going down without a fight and attack any country close to them that are involved

But then you got China saying they will step in if we preemptively strike...which is what makes NK such a good attack dog for China. Crazy enough to bark like a rabid animal that China can deny having control, at the same time they have a loose leash on them, and will give the scent of who they want them to bark at, but not sic them on until they’re ready.

Step in and do what? The Chinese depend on our economy to survive and would commit suicide regardless of what liberals think.

I still believe if we attack NK the soldiers will surrender......the regime is cracking

Yes and no, China wants global a reset. They are actively trying to replace us as the standard currency. They know whichever artificially propped up economy crashes first looses. If they draw us into a major conflict in NK, give themselves home field adavantage since they don’t have as powerful a navy, then call foul and attack...well that’d be more costly for us then it would for them. Especially considering we first have to take on a country that has been prepping for war with the US since it’s conception, and that we would have to take a protective role of SK, Taiwan, Japan...residentially forcing us to act pretty much only defensively on their home turf. They don’t need a large navy to make that hurt for us...did I forget to mention they hold like 80% of our debt...imagine what happens to the USD when they decide to sell that off all at once.

It’s time to wake up, terrible foreign and economic policy has put us in quite a tight spot. It’s hard to admit but it’s true. And you still have to remember that Russia can’t wait to take pot shots at us, for the same reason, to replace the US as the superpower in the world. Russia has made that very clear. They are not our friends. They have funded both BLM, ANTIFA, white supremicist, and neo nazis. Clearly no ideals they are trying to push, only chaos.

 

[ThatDude30]

Something is going to happen, but what? If N. Korea Strike first Seoul will probably feel it first but if we hit first there might not be as many casualties as if N. Korea would to strike first.

The thing about belligerent assholes is that eventually they follow through on their threats. And, letting NK strike first will be much worse than a preemptive attack. Still, there probably is some recourse other than an attack. I'm sure we could get China to be much more cooperative with us in pressuring NK.

It was stupid in the past giving an aid to a socialist country. NK needs to chocked, even if it means mass suffering for the already suffering NK people. It can only get better after it gets worse.

And by not doing anything its just giving NK more time to research, build, and experiment there missile capabilities. The US wants to help everybody before their own people. There are major problems in America that needs resolved. Why help out hungry countries before the hungry in our own country?

Everybody is worried about Seoul. No matter what happens I'm sure Seoul is going to suffer casualties and damage. So worrying about Seoul is a bigger concern than giving NK time to develop a nuclear warhead that is capable of reaching American soil? I just don't get people man.