There are enough open doors in life for everyone to have a happy and successful future. However, there are also many things in life that can suddenly close those doors in your face, such as war. War can never be justified because not only is it unethical, but it completely destroys the spirit of human beings. Unfortunately, many people don't realize this at all, while some may only consider it from time to time. People doubt the terrible effects of war because they often believe that war can be justified in some, if not all, situations. Despite the idea that there are no solutions to conflicts other than war, nonviolent resistance is a reasonable method that should be examined because it can change our world for the better. Basically, just war theory is one that talks about how and why wars happen and states that war is justified in selected cases. There are three important parts of just war theory: Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello, and Jus Post Bellum. These parts apply to two enemies who have similarities in religion, race, or language. When values ​​are shared between these two groups, they usually agree on the limits of war, and that's where Just War comes in. However, when there are two groups that are not culturally similar or when there is a difference in rank, these rules do not apply to war. The reason this theory exists is for enemies to be able to figure out who will participate in the war and what will happen in relationships after the war. Often, when groups agree on certain conditions of just war theory, it is because it will benefit them in the long run and they will be able to avoid political or moral problems that have occurred in the past. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the first section called “Jus Ad Bellum” of just war theory, there are six criteria for war. In a document created by Michael Lacewing, which contains all the details about this idea, it states: “The response to the declaration of war must be proportionate, that is, the good that can be secured through war must outweigh the bad that will most likely occur. The end must justify the means. And in this calculation, the state must take into account not only the costs and benefits to itself, but also those that will affect all people involved in the war." As has been demonstrated countless times, there is no sure answer as to what might happen after the war ends. The consequences of a war can be many: another country can attack, the situation can be taken into control and even a crucial decision can be made, which changes everything. People who support this theory and believe it to be correct argue that the end of the war will make everything that happened during the war much better. This is completely false because many countries are left alone to pick up the pieces and somehow scrounge for money to pay for all the damage another country has caused them. In the end, a group can get what they want, but is all the destruction that war creates really necessary? This is especially true of wars that go on for a long time, so long, that people completely forget what started them, and what the goal is. The war on terrorism is a perfect example of this as it has been going on for sixteen years, since the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers. In 2016, the United States dropped 26,171 bombs, and most of these airstrikes took place in Syria and Iraq. Other countries include Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen,Somalia and Pakistan. All these countries were Muslim-majority and many innocent people were killed by drone strikes. The US government was convinced that they would kill whoever they wanted, until they actually killed the right person. They neglected the lives of so many people by lumping them together as one, and hoped that the end would be “justified.” None of these losses were ever acknowledged by the United States, and no one thought twice about providing war reparations to those people who were cruelly affected by them. This leads to the second section of just war theory called “Jus In Bellum”. This agreement talks about how the enemy should be treated by the opposing side. There are also six different criteria for this section, one of which is: “No weapons or means of warfare that are 'evil in themselves' are permitted. Examples include ethnic cleansing and mass rape.” This idea of ​​theory, just like all other ideas, is completely delusional. Just war theory does not accept that weapons are already “evil in themselves,” although this is obviously true. Weapons are intended to cause harm to other people, mentally and physically: as soon as the engineer begins to create the tool, it is only destined for destruction and harm. War has become so normalized and casual that using weapons to cause chaos is not something considered immoral. Although weapons are only one of the inhumane factors of war, another obscene aspect is wartime sexual violence. Rape has been committed by combatants for a long time and is simply something to be expected from war. During the Vietnam War, there were numerous assaults by South Korean and American soldiers. A Vietnamese woman posted her story on a petition website, where she explained how a soldier came and raped both her and her mother in their shop. Their lives had changed forever and they had no choice but to accept it. The lives of so many people would not have been affected as they were if the war had never happened. This is another reason why just war theory would never work. Preventing rape in a world where not everyone is fully aware of the consequences and effects of rape is truly impossible. If women who were once raped still struggle today to get government recognition for the things they experienced, then it is completely unreasonable to believe that citizens would ever stop committing these heartless crimes. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay The last point of view of this theory is called “Jus Post Bellum”, which is the last aspect. This concludes the whole theory and talks about the consequences of war: “Discrimination between combatants (including political leaders) and non-combatants still applies when seeking punishment. Public and international war crimes trials should be conducted.” Related to the previous paragraph, many different war crimes are completely unrecognized. There are international rules, in places like Syria, that protect citizens and prisoners of war who do not participate. According to a CNN article, some of these war crimes include torture or inhuman treatment, intentional causing of suffering, serious injury to body or health, and destruction of property. What is absolutely astounding is that these war crimes are an exact definition of what war is. No legal proceedings have been brought against anyone in Syria, however numerous charges have been made. However, no further investigations were conducted for.