Catherine Owens

How do you think WMD will impact the Just War Theory?

WMD will impact the Just War Theory that has uncertainty in establishing this sufficient threat presents a great challenge to decision makers considering preemptive war.  But when managing that uncertainty, we must remember that we can only hope to have probable knowledge rather than strictly certain knowledge of sufficient threat.  Only when the threat is actualized in the form of an open attack is there the possibility of absolutely certain knowledge, and with the threat of potent weapons of mass destruction (WMD), waiting for such a blatant attack can be disastrous for a just nation.  It would be unreasonable to demand that a just nation wait until it endures a nuclear, biological, or chemical strike before it preempts the threatening nation.  Such is the nature of practical philosophy, of which political philosophy (and therefore JWT) is a part.

Intelligence information can establish the existence of WMD that a belligerent nation could be used against them, but possession of is not enough to justify war.  The belligerent nation must indicate through its actions that it plans to use those weapons against another in order to provide justification for a preemptive strike.  Support of international terrorism represent such an action, but in order to qualify for preemption, the links between a nation’s leaderships and terrorist organizations must be more than merely a small number of degrees of separation between.  There must be evidence of a nation’s material support.  Such support might include (but need not be restricted to) a state’s provision of the following to international terrorists:  significant financial support, safe harbor from international authorities, training areas for terrorists, and most importantly illegal weapons (WMD) that improve the effectiveness of their strikes against noncombatants.  Mere verbal support for terrorism by a nation’s leaders (or even its citizens) would not justify a resort to war.