War and Realism

  • John Forge
Chapter
Part of the Research Ethics Forum book series (REFF, volume 1)

Abstract

Any justification of WWR will have to do with the war that frames context for the episode of WR at issue. The war itself will most likely not be the whole question, but it will be at least part of the question. Thus an important part of any justification of WWR will be the justification of the war in which the episode takes place – this much is clear. In examining this assumption, I have argued that any theory about the morality of war that includes an ad bellum proportionality condition will prohibit WWR and I have argued that all acceptable theories of this kind will include such a condition. However, at the end of the last chapter I noted that there are other traditions and theories about war, about why nations and states fight wars and about what wars are, which have more currency than JWT. For example, there are many people who study war in the discipline of International Relations (IR), the main academic field for the study of war in the modern world, where the prevailing view is realism, sometimes called realpolitik or power politics. And I said that this perspective is relevant to the present inquiry, because it provides an alternative way of looking at war, and (hence) at WR. One of the conclusions to be established is that, so far, the weapons researcher must be concerned about how the products of her work will be used, and especially that they will be used for unjustified wars and harmings, and hopes that they will not; but once she adopts the realist perspective, she should expect that these things will tend to happen.

Keywords

Moral Agent Atomic Bomb Political Unit International Relation Vital Interest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bull, H. 1977. The anarchical society. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bundy, M. 1990. Danger and survival. Melbourne: Schwartz and Wilkinson.Google Scholar
  3. Carr, E.H. 1946. The twenty years crisis. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, I. 1988. Waging war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Craig, G., and A. George. 1990. Force and statecraft, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Forge, J. 2002. Corporate responsibility revisited. International Journal of Applied Ethics 16: 13–32.Google Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. 1989. Sociology. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  8. Gordin, M. 2007. Five days in August. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hagan, K., and I. Bickerton. 2007. Unintended consequences: The United States at war. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  10. Kennedy, P. 1987. The rise and fall of the great powers. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  11. Lebow, R. 2003. The tragic vision of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ludendorff, E. 1936. The nation at war. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  13. Nexon, D. 2009. The struggle for power in early modern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Orend, B. 2006. The morality of war. Peterborough: Broadview.Google Scholar
  15. Paret, P. 1993. Understanding war. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ringmar, E. 1996. Identity, interest and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers, C. (ed.). 1995. The military revolution debate. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  18. Steele, B., and T. Dorland. 2005. The heirs of Archimedes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Strachen, H., and A. Herberg-Rothe. 2009. Clausewitz in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Von Clausewitz, C. 1984. On war, ed. and trans.: M. Howard and P. Paret. Indexed edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Waltz, K. 1981. The spread of nuclear weapons: More may be better. London: IISS.Google Scholar
  22. Waltz, K. 2012. Why Iran should get the bomb. Foreign Affairs 91(4): 2–5.Google Scholar
  23. Wight, M. 1986. Power politics. Harmonsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Forge
    • 1
  1. 1.History and Philosophy of ScienceThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations