Moral and legal judgments create an opportunity for developing just and lawful actions during the war. In a world with rampant instances of conflict, the soldiers are often faced with moral and immoral judgments based on the conduct demonstrated during the war. The traditional context of just and unjust wars was set on two fundamental principles. One was governing the resort of war, and the other was governing the conduct of war. The conduct of war can be used to explain the extent to which moral and legal actions applies during the war.
The doctrine explains the ability to adopt the required code of conducts during the war. However, significant issues have been noted especially those that need both moral and legal practice. Inappropriate actions hinder the soldiers from delivering the right conduct during the war. The product of mutual respect and recognition provides an opportunity for the officers to practice both legal and moral requirement in conducting war. On the other hand, the rules of war define the extent to which the soldiers can handle their enemies appropriately. The process is more reflecting of soldiers delivering their duty rather than acting based on the concerns of human feelings. Instead, it provides an opportunity for them to act professionally and reduce instances where the actions of the enemies could compel them to respond with hatred. For example, it is unaccepted to shoot criminals or enemies when they are trying to surrender. Somehow, the legal perspectives suggest that the war governed activity that requires the soldiers to act based on both prohibitions and permissions recognized globally. It also tends to prioritize the ability of soldiers to handle the battles since the soldiers have the license of starting a war, unlike criminals who have no permission or authority for similar action.
Therefore, the moral legality of war creates an understanding of the situation when the soldiers fight freely and choosing one the other group as enemies and designing battles. The war conducted from such instances is not termed as a crime since they fight with limited freedom and their war is not their crime. However, both cases required the application of military conducts which is governed by rules and shared consent.
Doctrine often downgrades or encourages containment and deterrence in favor of preemption. The idea often applied to the cases where threatening organizations such as those of terrorism and weapon mass destruction is required. It is determined by identifying the cause of war and establishes a common aspect that needs both the understanding and development of decisive developing national security. Political warfare provides examples of some of the cases that require the adoption of pre-emption strategies. It often leads to the destruction of the opponents, political social and another societal will. As a result, the process leads to actions that favor the state of interest. Political wars often vary based on the coercive methods applied thus providing an opportunity for the creation of hostile intent among the opponents. The process results in a potential escalation of the case of war, and therefore, loss of lives is often an accepted consequence. However, the process often leads to deterrence to prevent more attacks,
The method of conducting political wars or cases of handling conflicts linked to terror attacks have both positive and negative consequences. It has been witnessed across different states with the loss of lives being a significant consequence. Also, violent terror attacks or attacks conducted by the enemies aim at the innocent people of the countries involves in such wars. It has raised humanitarian concerns, especially with the rising need to establish appropriate definitions that outlined the required standards and aspects for handling such conflicts. Furthermore, most of the cases end up as unresolved especially when both parties fail to adopt appropriate practices and the war is influenced by partisan aspect and cases of massive killings of soldiers. The situation causes negative consequences and significant losses to the states. For example, the destructive power of nuclear weapons has reduced the rate at which the adversaries conduct instant attends. However, the rates of intimidation aimed at innocent people are threatening to lives.
The security strategies tend to address majority problems faced by the people in the countries. Both preventive and preemptive approach provides an opportunity for the state to reduce the enemies preparing to conduct a right strike way and those planning to conduct similar acts in the future. Bush’s Doctrine favored pre-emption to address the national security strategies aimed at causing massive destruction to the US. Rogue states threatened the America security. There was a need n to develop both strategies since the enemies use chemical biological and nuclear weapons in planning massive destruction against the country.
The American preventive wars may encourage other nations to justify attacks against their enemies. Therefore this could result in many conflicts across the world. Nations can view each other as threats and, thus conduct preventive wars. hence employment of preemption strategies in addressing major risks especially those linked to terror attacks. Besides developing defensive technology is crucial for expanding intelligence and strengthening security across the world.
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?