Cloudscape

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

A war should be fought only if it would save more lives than it would kill; otherwise, other means should suffice. Such wars, however, are very rare, as most only cause even more suffering than they resolve; because of this, war should be avoided as much as possible.
However, we must nuance this attitude. In all things there are exceptions, and so too there are in war: if none had fought Nazi Germany but all had yielded to them, then there would have been far more deaths than there had fallen in the Second World War. Sixty million people fell in the Second World War: however, in about the same time, eleven million people fell in the holocaust.
Suppose that all had surrendered to Nazi Germany in the hope, likely correct, that its despotism would disintegrate before long, as despotisms tend to do, then it would still likely have lasted long enough to kill more than sixty million people, so that even to endure its oppression would not have been worthwhile at all.
Thus, in some cases aggression may be better than passivity; but it is very flawed, and people who rule over an entire country should at least have the competence to find other means. These are people who claim to be proficient to lead millions of people, and, should it come to war, possibly to bring them to an end: if they really are, then they should be able to avoid war and find other ways of dealing with despots. Sanctions, psychological warfare, conspiracies, assassinations if needed — these can all be ways to avoid war and yet deal with tyranny in a way that could save lives.
Unfortunately, many leaders yearn to play part in a war, as it thrills them. Churcill, for instance, cancelled an assassination plot on Hitler as he thought that war should be fought on the field.
This goes to show that in all things we need both yin and yang in balance, and in our own wars as well; but in politics, for most of history we have had too much yang and too little yin. In all likelihood, this was because territory was originally a means for the male to reproduce, and so involved mostly masculinity, but little femininity. It is mostly over the past century that this has started to change, although we still see leaders who see war as a game. But when dealing with other lives, one has to be careful. The least mistake can make the difference between a hero and a murderer.

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

Hatred is a contagious disease: if you hate someone you will often make them hate you. War, which feeds on hatred, is therefore an epidemic, and fighting war with war is fighting fire with fire.