When is war justified, part duex?

[Ned]

I believe that many war would not have been fought had the rulers or people responsible for the decisions to go to war could do it over. Clearly that is not the case with the present Iraq war.

Why?

Because the cost of war at times far exceeds its original justifications or expectations.

The decision for war must include a cost-benefit analysis to the extent on can predict the future. Michiavelli said that one can choose when to start a war, but not when to stop it. The course of war is inherently unpredictable, which should make the decision to avoid war easy except where the benefits so outweigh the costs that no other choice makes sense.

No one goes to war over minor injuires or insults, or should. The injury must be major or the predictable cost of war low to justify war.

Given these thoughts, imagine this hypothetical. You are the king of German feoderati that have been given lands inside the empire on the condition that you guard the borders long enough for the nearest Roman army to come to you aid. One day, the Huns appear on your border in overwhelming force and give you this ultimatum: let us pass and we will do you no harm.

If you let them pass, you will have violated your agreement with the Romans. They may later come back to expel you by force from the empire. But if you do not let the Huns pass, they will certainly wreck extreme damage on your people even if you are able to slow them down enough to allow the Roman army to arrive and to drive back the Huns.

What choice do you make? Allow the Huns to pass or abide by your agreement with the Romans?

[Asher]

War is justified when it is against you.

[Spec]

Its part deux!

Mods, please fix title and permaban Ned.

Thank you.

Spec.

[Jon Miller]

If the Romans come, how is letting them past saving your people? And how is it your fault that you have war... isn't it theirs for giving you that ultimatum?

JM

[BlackCat]

Meaningless example.

If you observe them first, then you run like hell while preparing to fight for your life.

If they get you first, they might give you such an ultimatum, but that is just because their troops isn't quite ready yet. When they are they will kill you, rape the women and turn the survivors into slaves.

No way they would have just passed by and left you and your relatively strong army behind them (if you don't have a such, the question is absurd).

[Zkribbler]

I do like the conundrum though. If you say no to the Huns, they stomp you. If you say yes, the Romans come later and they stomp you.

If the numbers are as overwhelming as the OP says, I'd let the Huns go past and move my people across the border into the...er recently depopluated frontier. There should be lots of newly vacant farms over there...and lots of bodies that I could drag back to my village and make it look like my people were slaughtered.

[lord of the mark]

so ned, how long did it take you to come up with this analogy for the situation of the Belgians in 1914?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If the Romans come, how is letting them past saving your people? And how is it your fault that you have war... isn't it theirs for giving you that ultimatum?

JM

Fault?

This is not a question of fault. Clearly, the most at fault are the Huns. But the King who choses war over letting the Huns pass must share some of the blame when the Huns destroy his people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Meaningless example.

If you observe them first, then you run like hell while preparing to fight for your life.

If they get you first, they might give you such an ultimatum, but that is just because their troops isn't quite ready yet. When they are they will kill you, rape the women and turn the survivors into slaves.

No way they would have just passed by and left you and your relatively strong army behind them (if you don't have a such, the question is absurd).

Perhaps. But I believe the Huns and the Mongols did offer just these kind of deals during their marches.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Perhaps. But I believe the Huns and the Mongols did offer just these kind of deals during their marches.

Quite right, except it was surrender and become part of the empire or die - not "just let us pass and we won't change your status". Besides that, I think it was more done on a city basis than country basis.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so ned, how long did it take you to come up with this analogy for the situation of the Belgians in 1914?

Slept on it.

But, historically, as I said, the Huns and Mongols actually offered such deals in their marches. So the hypo is not all that unrealistic.

But, deal with it LoTM. What would you do as King of the German foederati? Honor your commitments to the Romans and fight the Huns, or let them pass.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Quite right, except it was surrender and become part of the empire or die - not "just let us pass and we won't change your status". Besides that, I think it was more done on a city basis than country basis.

Agreed. Which makes the Hun offer in the present case more than acceptable given that many Kings in reality took a lot worse deals to save their people.

Not so?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If the Romans come, how is letting them past saving your people?
JM

Come now or later? If they come later, you can simply leave if they ask, or negotiate compensation. If they come now, they fight the Huns. You help. But the odds are now even.

Either way, you are ahead versus fighting the Huns alone.

[Jon Miller]

Either... if they come now and you are in the process of letting the Huns past, they will recognize that you are in cahoots and kill you along with the Huns.

If they come later, and you let the Huns past, they will recognize you were in cahoots and kill you.

This is assuming that the Romans are stronger. If you think the Huns will win, then you should ally with them and hope to make a better deal with them than with the Romans.

Jon Miller

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Agreed. Which makes the Hun offer in the present case more than acceptable given that many Kings in reality took a lot worse deals to save their people.

Not so?

Nope. To take it back to belgium that would be the germans going from town to town and demand unconditional surrender while still be at full war with the state belgium.