Generally speaking, is there ever a legitimate justification to invade another country?

[acri1]

Most people here are from the US, and our country obviously has a long history of getting involved in poorly conceived and/or immoral wars.

That said, is there anything that would justify invading a country (I mean generally, not just in terms of the US) or is self-defense the only justifiable reason for military action?

For example right now Russia is invading Ukraine. Nato and the US obviously don't want to get directly involved because it would basically become WWIII. Still, Russia is trying to intentionally create a famine in order to manipulate the situation to their advantage. Now I'm not advocating military action or anything like that, I'm just wondering if there's a circumstance (outside of a direct invasion) where this every would be warranted? For example it it would prevent thousand or millions of people from starving to death?


Was watching a few documentaries about how terrible it is to live in North Korea, and I kind of lamented the fact that the rest of the world can't do much to help them. Same with other places. Obviously starting a war with NK would be a terrible idea, but it still sucks that other countries have to stand by and watch this guy starve his people. Is there any particular line that he (or any leader) could cross that would justify interference by other countries due to human rights atrocities? Or is staying neutral the only ethical thing to do? If, say, there was some country where Nazi's came back and were throwing (their own) people in ovens, should we still stay out?



I'm not taking any particular side because I don't know I'm just curious to see where people generally stand on this.

 

[OfTheCross]

Nothing really, in modern times with my modern sensibilities.

Depending on the consequences I'd advocate for an international response to save people like the North Koreans, though.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

No country should ever invade any other country.
Instead the UN should do it somehow rather.
But there's too much corruption.

The UN Security Council is the body in charge of world peace.
Now go look what are the 5 permanent members of this body and then go check which countries are the largest arms suppliers on the planet.
See if you see any similarities.

 

[acri1]

No country should ever invade any other country.
Instead the UN should do it somehow rather.
But there's too much corruption.

The UN Security Council is the body in charge of world peace.
Now go look what are the 5 permanent members of this body and then go check which countries are the largest arms suppliers on the planet.
See if you see any similarities.

The problem isn't so much corruption as it is that the UN has no real power.

If one country vetoes then there's nothing that can be done, and it's not like members are going to remove their ability to veto things.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

If one country vetoes then there's nothing that can be done,.

Yes but maybe that's the way it should be.

 

[Pressure]

To get the Nazis

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Self defense and a need to maintain security. A responsibility of govt is to guarantee those things. Now what constitutes a threat is what makes the difference.

But I can safely say that the UN is mostly useless and the real influence lies in the boys club of European and European dominated nations from the EU to Australia. That giant bloc of white Imperialism is what decides things on a global scale, the whole notion of a rules based system and “international norms” is really about maintaining the military and economic dominance of that same boys club.

So to me, it’s incredibly foolish, especially as a small or poorer nation, to rely on international law and the UN as a guarantor of sovereignty. All it takes is for those same pompous benefactors of our “rules based system” to decide you and your sovereignty are a problem or not worth saving to find your freedom compromised and/or snatched away.

 

[acri1]

Self defense and a need to maintain security. A responsibility of govt is to guarantee those things. Now what constitutes a threat is what makes the difference.

But I can safely say that the UN is mostly useless and the real influence lies in the boys club of European and European dominated nations from the EU to Australia. That giant bloc of white Imperialism is what decides things on a global scale, the whole notion of a rules based system and “international norms” is really about maintaining the military and economic dominance of that same boys club.

So to me, it’s incredibly foolish, especially as a small or poorer nation, to rely on international law and the UN as a guarantor of sovereignty. All it takes is for those same pompous benefactors of our “rules based system” to decide you and your sovereignty are a problem or not worth saving to find your freedom compromised and/or snatched away.

I basically agree with this -

But if if a country is doing something absurdly terrible like throwing Jews in ovens or starving people en masse, would interference ever be justified?


Or is human rights just not a good enough reason and they have to deal with their own problems?

 

[mastermind]

So to me, it’s incredibly foolish, especially as a small or poorer nation, to rely on international law and the UN as a guarantor of sovereignty. All it takes is for those same pompous benefactors of our “rules based system” to decide you and your sovereignty are a problem or not worth saving to find your freedom compromised and/or snatched away.

We have the UN, yet the white imperial power nations ignore that for "rules based system."

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

I basically agree with this -

But if if a country is doing something absurdly terrible like throwing Jews in ovens or starving people en masse, would interference ever be justified?


Or is human rights just not a good enough reason and they have to deal with their own problems?

It’s a very tricky question. For example, was Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda during the reign of Idi Amin justified? Would Arab countries be justified today for invading Israel in the name of Palestinian human rights? Were Western powers wrong for not intervening in Rwanda and then using that as a reason to perform interventions around the world under more false pretexts? Which the of course brings into question the whole idea of humanitarian imperialism itself.

I think there can be precedent for invading a country based on moral or humanitarian grounds. Especially if it poses a threat to the security and sovereignty of your country. War in itself is a disgusting practice so there are very few things that can justify it let alone invading a whole sovereign entity. But I think under the right circumstances it’s ok.

We have the UN, yet the white imperial power nations ignore that for "rules based system."

Can’t say I blame them. They the ones paying the tab so why would they go for a UN or ICC that was actually interested in doing it’s job in an impartial manner?

 

[DEAD7]

Self defense and/or self preservation.

I can also imagine humanitarian cases for invasion.

 

[mastermind]

Can’t say I blame them. They the ones paying the tab so why would they go for a UN or ICC that was actually interested in doing it’s job in an impartial manner?

It’s just hilarious to me.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

It’s just hilarious to me.

It really is, the juelzing they do to justify it makes it even funnier. It’s pretty ironic that many of the problems of the world are indirectly and sometimes very directly caused by the extreme hubris with which they currently operate.

 

[acri1]

It’s a very tricky question. For example, was Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda during the reign of Idi Amin justified? Would Arab countries be justified today for invading Israel in the name of Palestinian human rights? Were Western powers wrong for not intervening in Rwanda and then using that as a reason to perform interventions around the world under more false pretexts? Which the of course brings into question the whole idea of humanitarian imperialism itself.

I think there can be precedent for invading a country based on moral or humanitarian grounds. Especially if it poses a threat to the security and sovereignty of your country. War in itself is a disgusting practice so there are very few things that can justify it let alone invading a whole sovereign entity. But I think under the right circumstances it’s ok.



Can’t say I blame them. They the ones paying the tab so why would they go for a UN or ICC that was actually interested in doing it’s job in an impartial manner?

Yeah it's tricky. Russia intentionally causing a food shortage was kind of what got me thinking about this.

Like if a country was taking actions to intentionally cause a famine or drought in your country (for example blocking off a country that your country gets food from), would military action be justified? One one hand I hate the idea of escalation, but on the other hand causing people to go hungry on purpose could be considered an act of aggression even if it's not a military one.

Or what if some country decided to make slavery legal again? Would it be fine to just sanction the country and hope they stop? Or would action to rescue the enslaved ever be justified?


Honestly I don't know

 

[NZA]

your NK example could get SK and japan wiped off the map.

my personal rubric is:

1. if there is genocide...
-or-
2. if there is a self-defense (or ally defense) case due to an existential threat in that nation...

then an invasion is ok. the caveat being the collateral damage from the response. if WW3 can break out, if we have been engaging in some serious provocation or escalation of internal strife in the other country, or if a nearby neutral nation can be destroyed, then the calculation needs to add more things to consider. basically, we should not cause greater harm and we should not cause the conditions that require invasion.