A JUST WAR: is it possible?

MANY existing approaches while differing in details are united by the attitude that, in principle, war is functional. Almost every nation and almost each methodological school select and specify "positive" or "acceptable" exceptions from the "politically correct" criticism of a war. Some introduce the notion of a "revolutionary war" where "goals justify means". Religious crusades of various kinds also bless bloody means in the name of holy goals. "National liberation" movements, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, elaborated argumentation for another category of "just wars", referring, among others, to the slogans, rhetoric and logic of the "founding fathers" of the secessionist American revolution.

Theories of "just wars" could thus be historically grouped into several types:
• Religious crusades and wars with supporting ideologies and religious dogmas;
• Revolutionary wars (wars justified by the goals of democratization, change towards a more just or relatively progressive social, political or economic order);
• National liberation and self-determination wars (argumentation is elaborated within various nationalist and ethnic ideologies);
• Self-defence wars and military actions (legally justified by Article 51 of the UN Charter);
• War waged by the international community (represented by the UN) against an aggressive or "unjust" nation or regime (legally justified by Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and used in practice, for example, against Iraq, and under the name of "peace enforcement" in other parts of the globe);
• Humanitarian intervention (interference by the international community with military means against a regime abusing human and ethnic rights on a massive scale or in situations where ethnic cleansing and genocide take place).

One more type of the modern justification of a war action could be found in the theory of nuclear deterrence under the name of "retaliatory nuclear strike". At first glance this is just an application of the traditional right for self-defence as part of nuclear strategy. But it is a preliminary fear of retaliation that deters the potential aggressor from the first nuclear strike. If a first strike occurs, retaliatory devastation of the other nations cities does not in practice serve as self-defence (insofar as in most strategies second strike is counter-value, not counter-force, e.g. is directed not against empty missile silos but against the population, cities and industrial infrastructure). So the "just" character of the retaliatory nuclear strike should also be placed under a question mark.

It is not possible to eliminate war effectively while setting aside in parentheses so many "untouchable" types of war actions and armed violence. It is also to be understood that in most wars at least one side (if not both) consider "their side" of the war to be "justified". To eliminate most types of war it is necessary to reconsider notions of "just", "holy", "democratizing", "humanitarian" and other types of wars. Finally, there should be no exceptions for the agreement among nations on the illegal and unacceptable character of any war.