3 ms·
> What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance,
by boxed 3y ago
> What is clear is that invading another country is a morally evil act and that it has essentially never prevented more suffering than it has caused on balance, even in some of the most benevolent scenarios (like Kosovo).
Well that seems utterly absurd. The Allies invasion of Nazi Germany is an enormously clear example to the contrary.
- simiones 3y agoI should have said "invading another country that hasn't attacked you or your allies previously". Taking an invasion back to the original invaders is much more justifiable. My point was that starting a new war has virtually never been a good thing. For example, if the USA were to attack North Korea to stop the obvious human rights violations happening there, I don't think that would actually be a morally justifiable act. It would be much more likely to lead to more human suffering overall than it actually prevents: this was my intended point.
- boxed 3y agoIn the case of North Korea I think we can at least pass judgement retroactively on the Korean War. To me the population sizes of North and South Korea alone make is extremely clear who was right and who was wrong in that conflict.