Statecraft final

Question 1

What is war?

Answer 1

The continuation of politics by other means. It is not diplomacy but rather violence between groups for political purposes

Question 2

What is politics?

Answer 2

The pursuit of power for your interests, to impose your interests and create laws.

Question 3

What is the realist view of just and unjust wars? To answer this question well, fill in the blank on the next two statement and then answer the question

Answer 3

According to the realist view there is not justice in war, war is necessary. According to the realist view, people act out of necessity, fear, and self-interests

Question 4

In Thucydides Melian Dialoge… what do the melons want?

Answer 4

The freedom to remain neutral and not be controlled by the athenians

Question 5

Why do the athenians not want to honor the Melian Request ?

Answer 5

They beleive that it is necessity for Athens to control Melos or they risk looking weak and other states may begin to demand freedom. they were afraid/

Question 6

What do the athenians do and how do the athenians justify their position?

Answer 6

The athenians destroy Melos and justify it by claiming that preserving of Athens empire was more important than letting Melos remain neutral. If the athenians allowed Melos to remain neutral, really bad things would happen to Athens. The necessity of war.

Question 7

For Walzer, the justification for destroying Melos depends on two assumptions. What are those assumptions?

Answer 7

The athenians empire was worth preserving
They had certain knowledge of what will happen if they did not destroy Melos

Question 8

What two arguments does Walzer give in response to the realist argument? In other words, what is Walzer’s argument against moral relativism?

Answer 8

Walzer argues that the realist argument Is amoral because it uses necessity as an excuse to commit anything in war. Walzer also beleives that morality and notions about right conduct are persistent through time and society and therefore how we judge history is how we judge actions committed today.

Question 9

Throughout the book and in chapter 1, Walzer criticisms “arguments from necessity.” What is his criticism of these arguments.

Answer 9

Walzer beleives that necessity is an excuse for actors to do anything in war. necessity is ethically wrong because it excuses unjust actions
Necessity always implies one choice. There are always options, just people may make it seem as though there is only one necessary option

Question 10

Walzer says that war is always judged twice. What are the two ways in which war is judged?

Answer 10

Jus ad bellum- Justice of war
Jus un bello - Justice in war

Question 11

What is “at the heart of all that is most problematic in the moral reality of war”

Answer 11

The dualism of Jus ad bellum and jus un bello. How can the just side of starting the war continue to be just in war while still ensuring that they beat the unjust side.

Question 12

What is General Sherman’s view of war? What is a challenge to this view?

Answer 12

War is a crime of those who begin it and soldiers resisting aggression or rebellion can never be blamed for anything they do that brings victory closer. the challenge to this view is that. Walzer claims this is a realist view and that soldiers are responsible for sticking to the war convention by not harming combatants. they can not of anything in war and not be blamed.

Question 13

Which perspective on the justice of war is closes to General Sherman’s

Answer 13

Realist, there is no justice in war

Question 14

What did General Von Moltke say about justice and war? which perspective on the justice of war is closest to general von Moltke?

Answer 14

The greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy conclusion. The realist perspective is similar in that you must do what is necessary to win and there is no justice in war.

Question 15

On what grounds does the modern military code rest?

Answer 15

Non combatants must not be harmed

Question 16

What is walker’s point with “The case of Hitlers Generals “

Answer 16

Generals bear more responsibility for their cause than others. General should be allowed all the noncombatants prisoner of war rights but not given more rights than that. Eisenhower did not give hitlers generals the respect they would normally receive as generals due to the atrocities they committed

Question 17

What wrong does the aggressor in war commit

Answer 17

The aggressor commits the wrong of threatening another country’s territorial sovereignty.It also forces men and women to risk their lives to fight and causes them to choose between fighting or losing their rights or dying.

Question 18

What are the rights of a political community? Why do political communities have rights?

Answer 18

Territorial integrity
political independence
Political communities have rights because their citizens have rights, their rights are derived from the citizens.

Question 19

If states are not protecting individual rights, do those states still have the right not to be attacked? why or why not?

Answer 19

No, because the state’s rights are derived from the citizens rights. If the citizen’s rights are taken away, then the states rights are taken away.

Question 20

Who “owns” Alsace-Lorraine”? Who owns disputed land, land that two or more countries can claim? Why?

Answer 20

Germany owns Alsace- Lorraine because there is a larger population of German people there an the land follows the people. territorial integrity is not derived from property but rather comes from national existence. the people own the land.

Question 21

What is the argument for appeasement? What is Walzers argument against appeasement? What case does Walzer use to illustrate his position? describe the case.

Answer 21

The argument for appeasement is that it saves lives. Walzer argues that appeasement is not ethical and impoverishes us of our rights, liberties and freedom. Walzer uses the case of Finland in the 1940s to demonstrate that although Finland was much weaker than the Soviet Union they still chose to fight for their rights. Walzer says the better part of wisdom would be not to fight, but that is not the ethical thing to do.

Question 22

What is the twofold justification for preventive war?

Answer 22

The stats quo and balance of bower are worth preserving
Fighting now will be less costly than fighting in the future, It is a utilitarian argument.

Question 23

Walzer beleives preventive war is…

Answer 23

unjust, because the actor is attacking out of fear, not threat.

Question 24

Walzer beleives preemptive war is…

Answer 24

Justified because the attack is specified to be happening in the next couple of days.

Question 25

What is walzers counter utilitarian response to the utilitarian argument justifying preventative war?

Answer 25

Walzer asks the question of when to start counting the lives that are being saved. he also discusses the incommensurability problem in that it is hard to compare lives saved to other values like liberty and freedom. This argument can also be used to justify a lot of wars which will create more violence and casualties.

Question 26

Assessments of anticipatory war depend in part on a potential adversary intentions. How do realists gauge intentions? how does Walzer propose assessing intentions.

Answer 26

Walzer proposes that assessing intentions should be based on the manifest of military operations in preparation of war with a declared threat that an attack will happen in the immediate future. Intentions can not be gauged by a politicians verbal threats because it is cheap talk.

Question 27

What criteria does Walzer offer to assess whether a preemptive attack is just?

Answer 27

If the impending attack is happing soon, within days, then the preemptive attack is justified. If there is a point of sufficient threat and a degree of active preparation.

Question 28

What case does Walzer give to illustrate arguments about preemptive war? briefly discuss the details of the case.

Answer 28

The Israel War of 167 was a justified preemptive war. Israelis were justified in their preemptive attack because they were told that they were going to be attacked within the next couple of days.

Question 29

The promotion of humans rights motivated Walzers argument for a just war. Is it just to intervene in countries that are not democratic and therefore not giving people full political rights? Explain

Answer 29

No, unless there is a humanitarian emergency such as genocide or ethnic cleansing it is unjust. It is unjust to violate the state’s territorial sovereignty just because it is not democratic.

Question 30

When is It permissible to intervene in another country’s affairs. Briefly describe each type of case. Given an example of each type of case. Explain why intervention is just in these causes.

Answer 30

It is permissible to intervene in another county’s affairs when it is to fight for independence and through off colonialism in a political succession such as in the Hungary 1848 case. The UK would have been justified in invading Hungary to help them promote independence from…
It is just to intervene in another country affairs when it is to stop a humanitarian emergency such as genocride and ethnic cleansing like in Nazi Germany. Britain was just in intervention because it was to stop the humanitirarin crisis.
Is is just to internet in another country when it is proportionally counter intention in a civil war. The United States was just in their counter intervention against north vietnman in the civil war. However, they were unjust because they disproportionally counter intervened.

Question 31

Is humanitarian intervention just when one has selfish motives. Explain and provide an example.

Answer 31

Yes, you will never find political actors doing something only for altruistic reason. As long as was convention is followed an the suffering is ended, it is ok if selfish motivations are involved because they are still providing aid and Saving lives. One example is the case of Bangladesh in 1971.

Question 32

For Walzer, what sort of human rights violations potentially justify humanitarian intervention? explain.

Answer 32

Very extreme violations such as genocide, ethnic cleanisng, or ensalvement. He states that “normal bloody repression does not justify intervention.

Question 33

The promotion of justice, in the sense of protecting and validation human rights, motivates walker’s just war theory. Why do some realists argue that the pursuit of justice leads to significant violence? What is walzers response?

Answer 33

Realists argue that the pursuit of justice leads to significant violence because it allows for the justification of some wars. Since more wars are justified, it leads to more wars being fought and thus more violence.

Question 34

Does Walzer think that political reconstruction or regime change is just? why or why not? Discuss the relevant conditions if any

Answer 34

Walzer does not beleive that political reconstruction or regime change is just because it violates the territorial autonomy and sovereignty of a state and thus violates the autonomy of its citizens.
Political reconstruction is only justified when it is a ,Eans to an end but no an end itself such as in Nazi Germany. The regime in Germany needed to be changed to stop the humanitarian crisis occurring.

Question 35

In Walzers argument, only one side in a was has a just cause. Given this view of just cause, are soldiers moral equals? Should the soldiers and people for the unjust side receive the same rights as the soldiers and people for the just side? why or why not?

Answer 35

Soldiers are moral equals. Soliers and people for the unjust side should receive the same rights as the soldiers and people on the just side because the are not the ones deciding to wage the war, they are only answering to orders.

Question 36

The German general von Moltke argues that the “greatest kindness in war is to bring to a speedy conclusion” does Walzer agree or disagree. Justify your answer.

Answer 36

Walzer disagrees because bringing the war to a speedy conclusion usually means doing whatever is necessary to end the war. this is a utilitarian argument and the necessity to end the war justifies a ,to of unjust actions such as killing noncombatants which violates the war convention.

Question 37

What is the purpose of the war conventions? What is the primary distinction made by the war convention?

Answer 37

The purpose of the war convention is to make clear what kinds of attacks and wars are justified. Once war has begun, soldiers are subject to attack at any time. It distinguishes the rights of soldiers and non combatants.

Question 38

what are the two principles of walzers war convention?

Answer 38

Once war has started a soldier is subject to attack
non combatants should never be subject to attack and any intentional attacks on them will never be justified.

Question 39

Which side usually argues against limits on who can be attacked in war? How do they justify their position?

Answer 39

The weaker side usually argues that they should not have limits placed on who they can attack in war because they claim they need to do whatever it takes to win. They justify their position by claiming it is necessary for them to do anything they can to get and advantage to win the war since they are disadvantaged by being smaller.

Question 40

Is it permissible to shoot a soldier taking a bath? why or why not? explain.

Answer 40

Yes, According to the war convention soldiers are subject to attack at any time. they are still a combatant while taking a bath.

Question 41

Is it permissible to attack civilians who work in a factory making weapons for soldiers? explain.

Answer 41

Yes, it is permissible to attack civilians who work in a faculty making weapons for soldiers because they are aiding the war effort.

Question 42

Is it permissible to attack civilians who work in a factory making/processing food for soldiers? explain

Answer 42

Np, the difference is that these civilians are making food which everyone needs to survive, they are not providing tools for fighting only necessities needed to live.

Question 43

Is it permissible for a military submarine commander not to pick up survivors from a military ship that is sinking? what about a civilians ship?

Answer 43

The survivors should be attempted to be saved unless there are too many for the capacity of a submarine. the submarine also faces the challenge of being found by the enemy if they risk picking up the survivors. They should never be killed, and the mission may have to be called off to call for help.

Question 44

What is the principle of double effect? what are the four criteria? how does Walzer modify one of the criteria.

Answer 44

The principle of the double effect is a way of reconciling the abosulue prohibition against attacking non combatants with legitimate conduct of military activity.
the four criteria are
- that the act must be good or indifferent
- the direct effect is morally acceptable
- the intention of the actor is good
- the good effect compensates for the evil effect.
Walzer claims that the attacker must minimize the harmful effect to citizens as much as they can by taking on some risk themselves.

Question 45

Why does Walzer talk about the principle of double effect? What is the purpose of this principle for his argument?

Answer 45

The principle of double effect helps us understand when actions that harm non combatant are just or unjust
he talks about it to help us make judgment about the challenging situations that come up in wartime.

Question 46

Is siege warfare just, according to walzers just war argument? explain. discuss any relevant conditions, if any.

Answer 46

Siege warfare is not just according to Walzer because it is aiming at the leadership through non combatants. the only condition which makes a siege just is when the attackers still allow food and necessities to get to non combatants which defeats the purpose of a siege.

Question 47

Is a blockade just, according to walzers just war argument? explain. discuss any revilement conditions If any.

Answer 47

a blockade is not just according to Walzer because it is attacking the combatants through non combatants. the only contains that makes a siege just is when the attackers still allow food and necessities to get to the non combatants which defeats the purpose of a blockade.

Question 48

In guerrilla warfare, fighters do not typically wear uniforms. if the other side cannot easily distinguish between combatants an non combatants, does the guerrilla fighting side forfeit some rights? What should the strong side do?

Answer 48

The guerrilla fighting side does forfeit some rights because they are hiding among civilians. the stronger side according to walzer. should not fight the guerrilla fighter because it may cause harm to combatants.

Question 49

How does walzer define terrorism?

Answer 49

Walzer defines terrorisim as the random killing of non combatants.

Question 50

What two argument are usually employed to justify terrorism.

Answer 50

Necessity and dehumanization

Question 51

What are asinine ethics> who coined the term and in what context> what is the sliding scale argument in just war theory?

Answer 51

Asinine ethics are ethics where the attacker does not use their advantage and rather would fight a fair fight. Mae Tsetung used this term in ferencde to an old Chinese battle where the attacker did not attack, instead he waited for them to line up because a fair fight was more important than winning .

Question 52

What is the sliding scale argument in just war theory?

Answer 52

The sliding scale argument in just war theory is the greater the justice of my cause, the more rules I can violate for the sake of the just cause

Question 53

What are the four ways poe dealing with the tension between jus ad bellum and jus in bello? Which does walzer prefer?

Answer 53

• war convention is set aside under utilitarian argument
• convention yields to the moral urgency of the cause
• convention holds and rights are respected
• convention is overridden but only in the dace of an imminent catastrophe- walzer prefers this one

Question 54

Is it just to violate state neutrality for a good cause? Justify your answer. was the violation of Belgium’s neutrality in 1915 just or unjust? justify your answer.

Answer 54

No, because it violates the states territorial sovereignty an thus violates the rights of citizens. unless supreme emergency.
Germany argues it was necessary to violate neutrality to preserve the country and because it was a strategic locations. If they did not invade then bad things would happen to Germany. They declared they were in a supreme emergency but they were not facing defeat and the danger was not severe enough.

Question 55

Was the violation of Norways neutrality in 1940 just or unjust? Justify your answer?

Answer 55

The violation of Norways neutrality in 1940 was unjust because it was not necessary at the time. Britain was not facing imminent defeat at the time so it was not a supreme emergency.

Question 56

What is a supreme emergency ? For Walzer, what two criteria define supreme emergency?

Answer 56

A supreme emergency is declared when a state is facing imminent defeat and or the threat of danger is severe. The two criteria that define a supreme emergency are the imminence of danger and the nature of the threat.

Question 57

Was the bombing of Dresden just or unjust, according to walzer? justify your answer.

Answer 57

The bombing of Dresden was just because it was a supreme emergency and Britain was facing possible defeat.

Question 58

Was the bombing of Hiroshima just or unjust, according to Walzer? Justify your answer.

Answer 58

The bombing of Hiroshima was unjust because the United States demanded unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Unconditional surrender is an unjust demand because ir requires political reconstruction which violated the territorial autonomy and sovereignty of a state and thus violates the autonomy of its citizens. The bombing of Hiroshima is also unjust because it killed a disproportional amount of non combatants.

Question 59

What ethical perspective justifies the bombing of Hiroshima? explain.

Answer 59

Utilitarianism justifies the bombing of Hiroshima because it saved a lot of lives. it was necessary for the greater good for the greater number of people.

Question 60

According to walzer. what led or caused the bombing of Hiroshima? explain.

Answer 60

The unconditional surrender demanded by the usa for Japan. the demand for unconditional surrender was too much for Japan and they could not agree to it.

Question 61

What is the ethical justification for threatening to use nuclear weapons? explain

Answer 61

It is used to preserve peace due to mutually assured destruction. it deters attacks from enemies.

Question 62

What is the ethical argument against treating to use nuclear weapons? Explain.

Answer 62

The ethical argument against threatening to use nuclear weapons is that for the threat to be credible you must beleive and be fully prepared to harm non combatants

Question 63

What does non-violent defense call people to do? according to walzer, when might non violent defense work? what is Orwells view of non-violent defense?

Answer 63

Non violent defense calls on people to make their country ungovernable by the attackers. non violent defense might not work when the nature of the attacker is very violent and unrestrained. Orwell states that nonviolent defense will not work because an aggressive actor will continue being aggressive, they will not show restraint towards nonviolent defense.

Question 64

What is walzers position on non-violent defense?

Answer 64

Walzer is skeptical about non violence defense because for it to work, it depends on the aggressor being somewhat retrained in their actions and care about human rights.

Question 65

Is regime change a just cause for war? why or why not

Answer 65

A regime change is not a just cause for war because it violates states territorial sovereignty which is a violation of the countries citizens.

Question 66

When confronting a regime with a history of aggression or likely to commit aggression, what policy does Walzer recommend?

Answer 66

Walzer recommends containment, war is not justified because past actions are not critical for evaluating intentions. what matters is the manifest intent to attack such as active preparations.

Question 67

Why did the containment policy against Iraq fail.

Answer 67

The containment policy against Iraq failed because other allies like the French were undermining the sanctions and containment strategy. the western powers wanted to change the status quo and pushed the bush administration to do something different. there was also a widespread perspective that the economic sanctions were too costly for Iraq.

Question 68

Given the failure of the containment policy against Iraq, does Walzer think the Iraq was was just? explain.

Answer 68

Walzer beleives that the Iraq was was unjustified because they used past actions to evaluate the intentions of Iraq once containment ended.

Question 69

Why does walzer say “the assignment of responsibility is the critical test of the argument for justice?”

Answer 69

There can be no justice in war if there are not resposnible men and women. the entire argument for just and unjust wars falls apart if there is no responsibility. it turns into ethical relativism.

Question 70

What are we to say about those military commanders who override the rules of war and kill innocent people in a supreme emergency?

Answer 70

They should receive a certain type of punishment. they should not be rewarded but not punishes legally and put in jail. the person whole be dishonored and shamed like in the case of Arther Harris.