We Need a New Just-War Theory, Which Aims to End War Forever

My last post, " How Can We Condemn Boston Murders and Excuse U.S. Bombing of Civilians ?", has provoked lots of commentary, including a vigorous discussion on reddit . The larger question people are wrestling with is when, if ever, lethal force is justified. Here is my attempt at an answer, which I originally presented in The End of War and in a column last year: History abounds in challenges to peace-lovers, which I call damned-if-you-do-or-don't dilemmas. Should American colonialists have violently resisted British rule? Should Lincoln have waged war to preserve the Union and end slavery? Should the U.S. and other nations have intervened when Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait in 1990? When Serbians carried out ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Kosovo? When Hutus started slaughtering Tutsis in Rwanda? When China squashed Tibet's attempts to gain independence? Let's say that Nazi Germany had not invaded any other countries but had carried out its plan to exterminate all German Jews. Should other nations have attempted to stop the slaughter? When, if ever, is nonviolence less moral than violence? [More]