When is war the answer, if ever?

When the innocent are being oppressed by an evil they cannot defend themselves against, then someone has to rise up and fight back to defend them. For example, in WWII, the Allies fought back against the Nazis (not Germany herself!) from taking over Europe, and to put an end to their brutal mass murders of Jews and other, "lower," people. Now the Allies themselves weren't perfect (they were guilty of many of the same things as the Nazis!), but God still used them to end Hitler's tyranny.

Very good answer. Although I don't see how it wasn't "against Germany herself" necessarily.

If Germany's people hadn't been indoctrinated by the Nazis, and hadn't been blind to the evils they were commiting, then they wouldn't have fought for the Axis powers. And the Allies weren't fighting against the Germans specifically, but rather the evil that they were blinded to and driven by. There were many good German soldiers who, if they had heard of the monstrous things Hitler and his followers were doing, would have either defected and sought asylum with the Allies, or would've tried to become spies for them (the latter of which Deitrick Bonhoeffer did, although he wasn't a soldier). So I don't think the Allies were fighting against Germany herself, but rather the wickedness that had enslaved her. Maybe I'm talking into my hat, but that's my perspective. You are welcome to disagree.
Cheers,
Ælfwine Elf-friend.

Alright, I can see that

Another thought I just had was if Hitler had been born in America and made president, or if he had been born in Britain and had been elected prime minister, then he would have done the same things (certainly in America. Not sure how much influence the monarchy in Britain had on gov't at the time). Evil doesn't need a specific place to work from. It can start anywhere, infiltrate any system, and corrupt any hearts not vigilant against it. And when it does that, then we need to fight against it. Hope I gave a sufficient answer overall. Have a blessed week!

Thanks, you too! You have some great insights!

As do you. God bless!

When the question is “What should never be the answer?”

Basically war is never an answer.... However sometimes it's inevitable. Pacifism will in the end also not always work. We've seen tons of misery already because people didn't wanna have blood on their hands and tried to avoid a war, only to get blood on their hands anyway.
WWII is a perfect example of how people tried to prevent a war, against better judgment as WWII was sure to come, and perhaps a lot of shit could have been prevented had people not been afraid to have blood on their hands... of course this is guessing work, as blaming WWII on Hitler alone is not doing history justice, as there was more to it, but we can say that people did try to turn a blind eye on Hitler a long time afraid for a war, which everybody knew was coming anyway.

In the most general sense war itself is never the answer. Perhaps we should rather think in the question should we act when we know it will mean war, but what would happen if we do nothing? When people are set on it to start a war, they will do so anyway, and being the pacifist looking away is in a certain way, just as bad, although it's then only a bit harder to say whose blood is on your hands.

If a war CAN be prevented, it's as a basic rule always a good thing, but one should think further than war alone. The world is ruled by idiots after all, and as long as that doesn't change a lot of misery will happen, with or without war. I think it's an illusion to think that we could make the occupation of ISIS of the grounds they unrightfully claimed as their "caliphate" without violence, thus war... And what would have happened if that war wasn't fought... right... ISIS would have become more and more powerful with all the crap that brings along. Was war the "answer"? No... merely something that could not be avoided... I see it rather as a "side-effect" of trying to bring them down knowing they'd use violence to defend themselves.

I hate war. It's a disgrace for the human race. It would be better if there were no more war. But looking away, afraid to make your hands dirty on war, isn't always an option either... It's a reality we all have to accept.

Interesting argument

Last option is what I think war basically is

Me too

A. When you have received information that your neighbor(s) are about to invade; The Six Day War
B. To stop brutal conquests and liberate the conquered; i.e. WWII
C. To prevent attacks from happening again: Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)

Agreed

I've just forgotten someong about the Six Day War; the Israelis didn't receive any information about the pending invasion, but decided to and and execute a preeptive strike on her neighbors because the latter amassed troops to the border. It appeared to the Israelis that they're about to invade so they've felt they must strike first

It was the Yom Kippur War in 1973 that they've received information of Egypt and Syrian intentions but decided to let them strike first so that the international community would not see them as the aggressors.

Hmmmm

They didn't jump the gun if you're thinking that; the Egyptian president received false information from the Soviets about the intentions of the Israelis so it massed it's military to the border. When he learned of the truth of it, he did not stop his rhetoric because his people were so desirous of war after the humiliation of 1947-48 war, and the Sinai campaign in 56.

Yeah, I knew that. Then the Israeli air force wiped out the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground :) Outstanding move

Yes, outstanding; a plan masterfully done and executed perfectly. :)

When there is someone who is advertising a false truth and uses absolute violence to obtain it, and all other options are exhausted, that is when war is necessary. If there is another way to defeat an evil, then, by all means, take that route, but standing on the sidelines and being passive is unacceptable. That is what causes corruption's roots to grow just a little bit deeper. Wisdom is definitely necessary in those situations, not impulsiveness or passiveness.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Use it only when all other options fail

Yes. But not too late.

That is also very true

The Seal of the President of the United States is instructive. The olive branch on the left symbolizes peace toward all. The quiver of arrows on the right symbolizes force if necessary. Both must be options in order for a country to survive and prosper.

Overwhelmingly, I favor peace. But to paraphrase what others have said: pacifism will never work as long as there is evil in the world.

The question of *when* it is proper to use force is an extremely difficult one that has been botched many times in modern American history. Rushing to war often creates more suffering than it was intended to alleviate. See: The Vietnam War, the Iraq War.

But other times in history, American arms were unquestionably a force for good in the world. See: World War II, the Persian Gulf War.

Going further back in our history, the North's use of force in the Civil War helped preserve the Union and ultimately effectuated the abolition of slavery. Even farther back, the American Revolution established the country we know and love today.

Then you have the borderline cases in our history, like the Korean War which was fought to a bloody standstill, but which preserved South Korea as a Cold War ally and set the stage for its amazing post-war development.

World War I is another borderline case. Americans helped "win the war" but "lost the peace" as the defeated Weimar Germany eventually became a resurgent Nazi Germany. World War I also sparked the Russian Revolution, which established the USSR and led to unfathomable human misery under communism in Eastern Europe and Asia. Even 100+ years later we are living with the aftershocks of the Russian Revolution in places like China, Cuba, Venezuela, and, especially, North Korea.

We must be guided by our best reason and moral judgment in matters of both war and peace.

Sometimes pacifism works. Nonviolent revolutions are twice as effective as violent revolutions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/01/worried-american-democracy-study-activist-techniques

I mean, it's really not our fault the Russian revolution happened

True, not saying that one is our fault -- just pointing out how wars can alter the course of history even a hundred-plus years later.

Most definitly true

I honestly think that it's never the answer. Sometimes though, you have to go to war for a good cause. For example, we wouldn't have just let japan bomb our country during WWII.

This is true