Exactly how many deaths would be required in a terrorist attack before we felt compelled to go to war?
Should we go to war if 5 people are killed by terrorists? What about 10? 100? 1000? What amount of lost human life ("American life"...sorry...excuse me...) is quantitatively worth murdering other innocent people to get a minority of suicidal nuts?
Around 3000 people were killed in 9/11. Should we have gone to war if only 2999 were killed?
If you say yes, then can we work backward and find a definitive point at which the lives lost are not worth a "war"? Stop me when I get close to the number that just ain't worth it...
NOTE: I screwed up the survey... :\
It is now corrected...so feel free to continue with not voting.
I don't think there ever has been a prescribed number, with most wars being started for many other agendas.
The Iraq war was allegedly to fight Al-Qaeda but it transpired that there never was any evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, or of them posing a joint threat to the US or UK.
The twin towers attack was effectively used as the reason for war, only Iraq was not to blame, and both the US & UK governments knew this at the time.
Nope, I don't think there is ever a single reason behind wars, but if governments can get popular support for fighting by breaking the hearts of the masses about x or y terrorist attack they will usually take advantage of it.
...oh, the defence equipment production and sales industry is very lucrative for western governments and as such many millions of jobs depend on war
I didn't ask if it was if there is a prescribed number. I asked what number YOU would require before feeling war to be justified. WOULD YOU go to war if only 10 people had been killed? If no, would you go to war over 3000? If yes, then that means at some point, we should theoretically have a number at which we would not feel war was ok, but which was right below the number which would be justification for war. Or is there a general number which is a grey area in which half the time would we would fight, and the other half we would avoid violence? But the what is that grey area. Can we logically work that out and nail it down?
When 3000 Americans were killed it was considered a tragedy, but when more than 3000 innocent foreigners are killed, it seems like most American's don't see that as one. Apparently, if we murdered 14 million or so, American's might admit that was a warcrime. But since it's only been around 500k-1.5 million folks killed, it's not that big a deal, and so middle easterner's have no right to complain. Or something like that...
I am not saying that of you by the way. You unlike many Americans, openly admitted our country has a serious issue with it's military-industrial complex and I def agree that our military used false pretenses to invade Iraq. They are really good at that: Covertly (and sometimes not so covertly :\) creating messes that give them the opportunity to swoop in and act like they are there to help. Apparently we think middle easterners are a "stoopide" lot and will fall for anything...that's why (some admittedly...not all, but some) Jihadists don't flock from all over to attack soldiers who drop JDAM's and Hydra rockets near innocent people instead of fighting the way they should.
BTW...please read that as really sour sarcasm, not anger. :\ I realize it might sound like a rant, but it's really extremely dry, dark humor.
The reasons behind wars are complex and often related to natural resources and/or land rights as well. For that reason I do not see how a 'magic' number of deaths can be stated as a tipping point to justify war in general.
I get what you are saying regarding life worth perception of foreign nationals, but this also relates to which foreign nationals are our 'friends' or not.
Here in the UK our news media is always wall to wall coverage of any shoot-up of a few people in a US school for example, while a couple of innocent families being wiped out by drone attacks in some remote Pakistan village will get a 2 minute mention.
There is no acceptable number in my opinion, politicians will spin any story to justify war, and the more heartbreaking the story then the easier it is for the warmongers to sway the populace.
It is certainly tragic that the average media brainwashed people in my own country find it easy to dehumanise the innocents in far off places, but it is no surprise to me.
I think your example is a bad one,the twin towers attack was a terrorist attack,therefore there was no country to go to war with.
Also I think your talking from an American perspective,if the USA killed 20'000 Uruguayans,I doubt Uruguay would declare war,as they know the USA is a superior military force,so they would undoubtedly try to negotiate a peace to limit any more casualties.
I think the USA would go to war with any country who killed any of its citizens,which would be a declaration of war,regardless of the number,whether it be 10 or 3000.
Personally,I think if you can negotiate a peace,no matter who the country is,then you take that option,you should never let ego or revenge take you into a full on war situation if it can be avoided.
I suppose you know countries have treaties between them. If you think USA military is invulnerable you are a little wrong. If USA makes an unjustified attack against a country like Uruguay and kills 20000 people that would more than probable start a war which could easily finish in a III world wide war. And more than probable many countries would break any treaty with USA and will aid Uruguay in the case of an unjustified attack from USA.
I don't know why you think all countries will allow USA do whatever they like without declaring war. Makes no sense.
It also would make a difference on who/how/where the enemy attacked.
There's a huge difference between:
If they found 1 american tourist in their country and killed them
If they launched a missile from their country that killed only 1 very unlucky person in Kansas
I don't think the USA is invulnerable,for instance,if it were just up to the USA they would have already invaded North Korea and Syria,but because it would potentially have dragged China (Korea) and Russia (Syria) into it,they have not invaded.
I was just making the general point that if the USA did something unprovoked and against international law to a country,like the drone attacks in pakistan,it is less likely to lead to war than if someone did the same to the USA,if any country performed a drone attack on the USA in pursuit of what they considered terrorists,I have no doubt that would lead to war.
I suppose you know Pakistan government an army has and had total knowledge of those attacks and allow them. So how you can call it an unprovoked attack to Pakistan when they are the ones that are helping to make those attacks against terrorists in what US calls "the war on terror".
How Pakistan is going to declare war to US when they are as guilty as US for those innocent people killed.
Those drones attacks is something that should be condemned by UN as the crime it is -already is I think- but it is not something that Pakistan can use to declare war to US because they are as guilty as US.