I think the scriptural teaching on war and morality is broader and more complex than self-defense. One of the starkest examples of this complexity, to me at least, is in Moroni’s letter to Pahoran, in which Moroni claims that God has commanded him to wage an offensive war against his own elected government unless they send him more food and reinforcements.

One tangential comment re Nate’s #30, in which he suggests that Europe’s lack of military capacity changes the moral calculus of Balkan intervention. This is no doubt true, to a certain extent, but it should be pointed out that possession of military capacity is itself a moral choice, requiring enormous investment of both treasure and blood (dozens of U.S. soldiers are killed or wounded in training accidents every year). If Europe chooses not to invest in that capacity, they must bear some responsibility for the consequences.

According to politicians, everything is self-defense.

I take it that the definition of self-defense is a question of the interaction between variables (1) and (2). However, it seems to me that this is not the end of our moral calculus but that even if scriptural limits on legitimate war specify that a threat must be some combination of (1) and (2) in order to justify any military response, one’s assessment of (4) will still come into the equation. Hence, one might believe that the extent and probability of some threat is such that it could justify a military response, but such a response would nevertheless be immoral if the response itself was likely to be ineffectual. It seems to me that even if one agreed regarding the size and probability of the threat necessary to justify military action, one might still have differing moral conclusions based on one’s view as to the efficacy of war. Furthermore, it may well be the case that many of our discussions are confused and that we think that we are arguing about (1), (2), or (3) when in fact we simply disagree about (4).

The question of whether or not strategic problems can be solved militariliy is a seperate question from whether or not one is morally justified in using war to solve them even if they do have military solutions.

As a young girl in a small wooden one-room schoolhouse in a tiny Nevada town, I loved the part every day where we sang songs like America the Beautiful and pledged allegiance to the flag. I didn’t, and don’t, think “my country can beat up your country.” I thought, “I love my country. We are good people.” I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Totally off topic (almost): Nikita Kruschev came through our town when he was in the US. Our teachers prepared us and I thought: “King, gold coach, horses, Cinderella.” I got: big black cars, little waving US and Russian flags, and a short, fat, bald guy, smiling and waving.” What a gyp that was for a little girl. I remember feeling just disgusted, I mean, what was all that fuss for?

I don’t think the question of offense or defense really has anything to do with Nates point. I think if a country is able to successfully defend itself then we see a tendency toward the kind of patiotism that Nate is talking about–right or wrong.

Unless I read more poorly than I think, neither the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, nor the Doctrine and Covenants give any justification for war but self defense. There are various ways to construe what self-defense includes, but I don’t see any way to construe it as “an instrument whose costs and benefits should be considered rather than a barbarid dead end.”

How do you reconcile the approach you are taking with the scriptures?