What force is justified in war?

If a country is attacked, what force is justified against the aggressor?

U.S. use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII is often seen as unjustified. What would have been a better alternative? Enter a war through conventional methods that could drag for years and result in more American deaths? What would have been a better alternative to the A-Bomb?

Let's say N. Korea actually ended up using a nuke on the U.S.: would the U.S. have been justified in replying with nukes? I think most people would say "no" due to N. Korea being a much poorer and smaller country militarily.

So what force is justified if you're the country that has been attacked? Does the amount of "justified" force change depending on the size of the aggressor compared to nation retaliating?

@vivify said
If a country is attacked, what force is justified against the aggressor?

U.S. use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII is often seen as unjustified. What would have been a better alternative? Enter a war through conventional methods that could drag for years and result in more American deaths? What would have been a better alternative to the A-Bomb?

Let's say N. Korea a ...[text shortened]... been attacked? Does the amount of "justified" force change depending on the size of the aggressor?

@mott-the-hoople said
if a country attacks another they should be prepared to accept any and everything. Its almost as if you expect aggressors be afforded >fairness<

@vivify said
So what force is justified if you're the country that has been attacked? Does the amount of "justified" force change depending on the size of the aggressor compared to nation retaliating?

@vivify said
If a country is attacked, what force is justified against the aggressor?

U.S. use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII is often seen as unjustified. What would have been a better alternative? Enter a war through conventional methods that could drag for years and result in more American deaths? What would have been a better alternative to the A-Bomb?

Let's say N. Korea a ...[text shortened]... t of "justified" force change depending on the size of the aggressor compared to nation retaliating?

@vivify said
If a country is attacked, what force is justified against the aggressor?

U.S. use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII is often seen as unjustified. What would have been a better alternative? Enter a war through conventional methods that could drag for years and result in more American deaths? What would have been a better alternative to the A-Bomb?

@vivify

Excellent question, viv.

And I can tell you, I knew two WWII soldiers who deeply regretted the A-bombing of Japan....
because they wanted to invade the mainland of Japan and kill everything in sight!!

All's fair in love and war

@teinosuke said
A number of revisionist historians have argued that the atomic bombings could have been avoided had the United States been prepared to accept a conditional rather than unconditional surrender from Japan, which could have brought the war to an end earlier in the summer.

@vivify said
A conditional surrender with Japan would not have been realistic given the culture at the time. Surrender was a shameful thing. General Toto said "do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you."

I don't think anything other than complete surrender was possible with Japan.

@suzianne said
Can't you ever answer a philosophical question without denigrating everyone who may not hold your view?

And please try to answer with your own ideas and try not to follow Trump's revenge leitmotif because you think that's "cool".

@teinosuke said
If a conditional surrender was shameful, then an unconditional surrender was even more so.

@teinosuke said
If a conditional surrender was shameful, then an unconditional surrender was even more so.

There's some evidence that as early as May, 1945, Japan was putting out feelers to the Soviet Union (then America's ally) and to neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland to explore the possibility of a negotiated peace. Revisionist historians have claimed that the United St ...[text shortened]... it would probably have involved permitting Japan to hang on to at least part of its colonial empire.

On a moral note, I would suggest that killing civilians is wrong.
If taking action can lead to the killing of civilians, another course of action should, if possible, be taken.

One cannot reasonably, for example, hold 3 year olds responsible for a government’s actions.
Ironically, on a side note, the people here defending nuking children in Nagasaki are the loudest to condemn a film showing 11 year olds twerking; so, it’s alright to fry children alive, but not to show them dancing... perhaps a moment of quiet contemplation on the morality of it all is needed.

If you’re fighting in an urban setting there’s always the chance of collateral damage. This is true. And realistically impossible to avoid.
When bombing tactical targets, one could probably say the same. But if the chance of civilian deaths is high, perhaps one should be very careful about how the benefits actually weigh up.

Strategic bombing... well, that’s a kettle of fish that entails that if children are going to die that it’s part of the strategy. You want the moral highground, you don’t fire bomb Dresden or Tokio. Or nuke Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If you do, you’re accepting others doing the same to your children. And that is the difference between being evil and being just.

Just because your nighbour rapes children, doesn’t mean you should rape his in return.
Morality.

@shavixmir said
On a moral note, I would suggest that killing civilians is wrong.
If taking action can lead to the killing of civilians, another course of action should, if possible, be taken.

One cannot reasonably, for example, hold 3 year olds responsible for a government’s actions.
Ironically, on a side note, the people here defending nuking children in Nagasaki are the loudest to ...[text shortened]...

Just because your nighbour rapes children, doesn’t mean you should rape his in return.
Morality.

@vivify said
I agree civilians should never be targeted.

What do believe would've been a better alternative in attacking Japan?