h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

- Does the philosophy of a just war still apply in today's multi-cultural society?

The philosophy is independent of the culture which spawned it. It is still a valid way of judging a conflict, past, present or future.

- What conditions you would consider necessary to constitute a just war?

1. One side has overwhelming technological, material and manpower superiority over the other, to the point where the weaker side can have no possible sensible motivation to resist because to do so would be futile.
2. The aggressor has given the attacked nation adequate warning that they are about to be attacked by building up military forces around their borders for a period not less than a month.
3. The aggressor takes whatever precautions they deem necessary to minimise casualties to their own side, and whatever precautions they can be bothered with to minimise civilian casualties on the other side.
4. When the dust settles, the aggressor is the only nation in a position to make any judgement about anything, including whether the war was "just".

- Where and with whom should the final decision to go to war rest?

With whomever can lie, cheat, steal, bribe, cajole or litigate their way to the position of commander in chief of the largest and best equipped army in the world. A democratic mandate would be nice, but is obviously not essential.

- How should countries respond to terrorism?

With overwhelming indiscriminate force. For every act of terrorism with a known perpetrator, kill every member of their family (parents, grandparents, siblings and their children etc.) and every living thing within a mile radius of where they were born and every living thing within a mile radius of their last known address, regardless of which country that may be in.

Make NO exceptions, even and especially for citizens of your own country, for they are the most dangerous terrorists of all, for they hide in your midst.

The IRA, ETA, Islamic Jihad, Hammas, Al Qaeda, all these guys would make themselves really unpopular the first time a battlefield nuclear weapon was detonated in the Bogside or Beirut in specific and notified response to a specific, named terrorist action.

The important thing is not to vary the punishment AT ALL across cultures and organisations. There should be a 100% standardised response, meted out without variation, without regard for how many the terrorist action killed or injured. Make it perfectly clear that precisely the same thing will happen whether you happen to be from some Palestine shanty town, a dead-end Belfast housing estate or the wealthiest neighbourhood in the Saudi capital - commit any act of terror, and YOUR earth will be scorched, wherever it may be.

In addition to making the perpetrators think twice, all these weeping families who come on the telly swearing blind that Mickey or Ali or Jose was such a good boy and they had no idea he'd ever do such a thing might be encouraged to pay a bit more attention to the sort of education their children are being exposed to at the pub or the mosque or the university.

"An eye for an eye" is for the weak. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, by all means, if you're that kind of religious weirdo. But if someone *else* plucks it out, tear their beating heart from their chest and choke their children to death with it.

- Do western countries really have the right to decide who is good or evil?

Only if they have more weapons than anyone else and, crucially, the will to use them to back up their opinions. There is no point being the biggest and the baddest if you let the smaller weaker nations push you around and expect you to listen to them. If *they* want to decide who is good and evil, let them finance a trillion dollar defence budget, develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, then they'll get listened to and treated with respect and careful diplomacy.

North Korea proved that.

You don't attack a country that HAS weapons of mass destruction. You might use it as a justification to attack one you know very well has NOT.

- Have there been any just wars in the 20th Century?

By the definition above, yes. WWI, WWII (both only eventually, once the US deigned to bother to get involved), the Falklands (although that was not as one sided as it should have been), and the archetype for the future of the just war, Operation Desert Storm.

Any "war" which is over in less than 100 hours has to be counted "just", by the definition above.

Many were not, because they were entered into without the cast-iron certainty of victory required.

H.

Are you suggesting the above are valdis reasons for going to war? And the scorched Earth reprisal is a valid reaction to a terrorist attack?

There's to many contradictions in your posting to make much sense but I take it your tongue was firmly in cheek when you posted?

Bluto:

Welcome to h2g2! Do yourself and everyone else a favour, and pop back to your personal space and write a little intro for it - "Hi it's me" in plain text would do for starters. That will allow people to leave messages for you there, and suddenly all sorts of things will start to happen (like something called an ACE will turn up and give you useful tips on how to use the site). OK, enough with the helpful advice, on to your post:

"Are you suggesting the above are valdis reasons for going to war?"

I don't *think* I gave ANY actual reasons for going to war. I gave some criteria to judge whether a pre-existing war (past, present, or future) was just. That's not the same thing.

"And the scorched Earth reprisal is a valid reaction to a terrorist attack?"

At least as valid as the other responses I've seen used. And likely more successful, I think...

"There's to many contradictions in your posting to make much sense"

Really? Where?

"but I take it your tongue was firmly in cheek when you posted?"

My tongue can usually be found in my cheek, when it isn't in someone else's...

H.

I Shall do when I get around to it I've just read yours and I suspect you've had a little to much exposure to SF but hey! it's a free country!

I was trying to reply to what you'd written but obviously you only want a reaction from the "gullible".

I'll try to be less gullible in the future!!

Ah. Another victim of the tag.

I didn't mean YOU, personally, were gullible. It's a little bit of code on my page which inserts the name of whoever is looking at it. When I read it, it says my name. You're far from the first to be taken in by that little bit of mischief...

The markup language which makes that possible, GuideML, is just one of the lovely things about this site which your ACE will no doubt tell you all about when you put something on your personal space. (Go on - it'll only take a moment - just click "Edit Space" and type in anything at all that occurs to you - you can always change it later).

And is there really such a thing as "too much exposure to sf"? What an intriguing concept!

And I want a reaction from anyone who can write, you included! (Thanks for commenting...)

H.

I sense a great career as an International Terrorist: I kick over a shed in downtown Boston, then claim responsibility in an Israeli accent. Before the day is out, the USA have nuked Jerusalem.

Result!

Hoovooloo - I applaud your (first)posting!