Just And Unjust Wars Analysis

In the fourth edition of Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer, Walzer discusses the crime, logic, rules, morals of soldiers, and finally the war convention. As discussed in the previous reading, Holsti also addresses the logic and war convention that must take place at the end of each war in order to ensure more satisfaction between the two sides in battle. Waltzer states that is is possible to fight a just war unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance to the laws of war. The author throughout this reading talks about how war is a crime. Walzer asks, "why is it wrong to start a war?” and states that “war is hell”. He follows up by stating the obvious, because people will be killed which relates to why it may be considered …show more content…
The limit of consent is also discussed in this article. Not many wars aren't hell. During the Renaissance from Italy, wars were fought by the mercenary soldiers by the great condottieri (leaders of the pro, military mercenaries which was contracted by the Italian city-states). But now people’s judgements are very different. Mercenaries are more advanced soldiers who sell their services on the open market, but some who were served by the royal family. Napoleon went to Metternich that he could afford to lose 30,000 men a month. Napoleon has to asked the soldiers he was about to “lose”. War is the form of tyranny. Modern warfare was filled with horror that deepens our minds like the fighting in the trenches of World War 1 and hardly the civilians lives were dying. Tyranny of war is a complex relations because coercion is common on the both sides. Agents “criminals” are responsible for the pain and death which was followed by their decisions. Their crime is aggression, but we understand that it is symbolized as the exercise of tyrannical power. The conviction for the victory plays an important role in so called as “logic of