Stuck in the Shadows of Nuclear Warfare

In Walzer's just war theory, as presented in Just and Unjust Wars, actions entering and during war must be justified. With his discussion of “jus in bello” (justice in war) and “jus ad bellum” (justice of war), state affairs are held responsible for their war ethics. Since the Westphalian Order, nation states have repeatedly participated in brutal wars, decimating millions of their people. The evolution of weaponry and war tactics grow more inhumane, but also more efficient in destroying cities, murdering innocent civilians, and tarnishing our sense of security. Walzer’s just war theory has become irrelevant at the face of national security, as self-defense has been redefined.

A massive game changer in warfare was the outbreak of terrorism, which continues to haunt nation states globally today. After the terrorist attack of 9/11, Americans’ sense of security was shattered. TSA regulations at airports, discrimination against those of Middle Eastern descent or Muslim religion, and the American army force exponentially increased. This powerful act of aggression and violence against the United States of America not only shook fear in American public, but also opened the eyes of many other nation states. The need for a strong army was like never before. 9/11, an unjust and unjustified act itself, made Walzer’s theory immediately irrelevant to most Americans. Uniting as a strong and powerful nation state became necessary. The presence of American arms in other nation states pushed these nation states to also strengthen their own arms, all attempts to avoid a similar tragedy and other outside threats. The priorities moved from acting just and with just, to defending and asserting the force of one’s nation.

Once an act of aggression is initiated, no matter from which party, it begins a cycle in which the nation state becomes prepared for what seems to be the next inevitable attack. Since the establishment of nation-state, there have been constant creations of new weaponry. A massive jump of weaponry, from the already ruthless mustard gas, is the invention and detonation of the atomic bomb. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, strategically on a Sunday while the US’s guard was down, we sent two atomic bombs their way. The atomic bomb obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the mass destruction, as intended, crippled the Japanese from further action. It has been justified that the bombs were in retaliation for the blow against our great nation, but there has also been evidence stating that Pearl Harbor was Japan’s last act of desperation before surrender. The justification for bombing Hiroshima was for Japanese military base built there, but the atomic bomb was detonated before hitting the ground, thus created far more damage on the entire city.

Nuclear warfare resonates in every generation after its birth. Nation states raced to create their own bombs, in attempt to establish their knowledge as power and force on the rest of the world. The threat, and possibility of such threat, of another nation state using nuclear warfare jabs at the international sense of security. As the damages of past wars, even that brought upon by nuclear bombings, is only remembered to feed the need to defend. While Walzer’s theory states that the declaration of war is only justified under self defense, today’s idea of self defense has been stretched past Walzer. While nation states, including the US, that are in possession of such weapons of mass destruction, build up their “self defense,” it has put in motion a sort of mutual destruction. International political conflicts often creates a feeling of being part of a waiting game for who would be the first to drop death on the others.

As nation states have proven in history, when threatened, will fight back. The weapons exist, and needless to say are very much efficient, the justification to detonate would be in self defense. The big red button labeled “Do NOT push UNLESS you absolutely need to destroy up to an entire country OR they pushed first” must be tempting with all the aggravating political conflicts. One detonation would very possibly set off WWIV, where blood will shed and innocent lives will be destroyed.

What exists as “self defense,” fails to uphold our sense of security. The horrors of nuclear bombs makes Walzer’s theory of just war completely irrelevant. While ethics are still very much a part of our political actions, our sense of security continues to be poked at with constant conflicts. The very existence of nuclear weaponry, what is meant to protect us or fight for us in the face of desperation, realizes the possibility mass destruction and international turmoil. Unfortunately, like the right to bear arms, many people hold the same ideology towards atomic and hydrogen bombs: better safe than sorry. “Jus ad bellum,” may be justified as the severity of our conflicts with the Middle East increases, but “jus in bello” hinges on the other side’s actions on the battlefield. “Jus post bellum” seems doubtful with the destruction created by nuclear warfare; a world war would be far too crippling and victimize all players.