Imagine having to go to war–not because of an imminent catastrophic danger or to save lives–but because someone took it upon themselves to decide that today, while the sun sparkles and children play, they need to prove their nation is superior to another. That they’re going to send people to die.

     How is it possible that humanity has made extraordinary strides in innovation in pretty much every aspect there is to progress in, yet still decide killing each other will solve their problems? In theory, they’re picking a simple solution to a complicated problem. They’ll realize too late that nothing was solved, and nothing will be left.

     How is it possible that one person or a body of government–regardless of size, diversity, and different viewpoints–can decide the fate of hundreds of thousands? What qualifies them to decide that today, people will die for them?

     Just War Theory is a doctrine that ensures a war is morally justifiable, and has been criticized and developed for years. The doctrine includes sections titled jus ad bellum (latin for “the right to go to war”), jus in bello (“right conduct within war”), and jus post bellum (“right end to a war”) and is intended to guide leaders when deciding to go to war.

     One of the criteria for jus ad bellum is just cause, which states that the reasoning for going to war must be just and cannot solely be for the purposes of recapturing things that have been taken or for punishing people. In other words, innocent life has to be in danger and action has to be taken to protect them for war to be considered just.

     Now, it’s sometimes difficult to gauge what can fall under this. However, it’s obvious when things clearly don’t. Like going to war with a country so it doesn’t join a certain alliance, or to get certain parts of said country. That doesn’t justify killing people, or forcing soldiers (some of whom probably want nothing to do with it) to do said killing.

     One of the rules under jus in bello is distinction, which states that acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they didn’t create. This should deter a certain country from bombing a theater (with the word “children” written in big letters outside in Russian) in which innocent civilians are hiding in, right? It happened anyway. And for what? Is it worth it?

     Peace is a very fickle thing to maintain and keep, especially when looking back on the complicated histories and origins of different countries, people, and governments. No matter how hard different leaders try, sometimes agreements won’t work out or hold. Regardless, violence shouldn’t be considered a solution as often as it has been, because those who choose it never really face the consequences those caught in the crossfire do.