war although being wrong is and explainable option. In cases like that though the philosophy of less is more should be applied. The less warfare the better. The less killing and death the better. Unfortunately it seems that more often that not once violence breaks out it doesnt end until one of the warring parties is all but gone. . The United States is guilty of this in the fight with Japan in World War II. The United States was winning in Japan and Japans European allies had already surrendered. So the end of the war in the Pacific was in sight. However the newly developed atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to completely demoralize the Japanese crushing them for sure. The bomb served two purposes, both of which were unjust. It ended the war in an unnecessarily violent way and it demonstrated the United States power and technological supremacy. The fact that the United States used the atomic bomb completely negates the fact that they entered the war to protect themselves. Although they were originally the defenders they took on the role of the unjust offender when the bomb was dropped, killing thousands of innocent unsuspecting people. While the United States has been involved a number of conflicts which did not have a direct effect on Americans. The justice of the U.S. standing up to freedom and those who are being persecuted is questionable. Standing up for the persecuted is a good thing but war is usually the wrong way to go about it. It seems that whenever American troops have been sent to other countries to fix that countries problem either the country looses its ability to stand on its own or there is unnecessary violence. I think as an outside force the efforts of the United States would better be served if they did not use force but rather took other non-violent action to change the attitudes of the wrong doers in other countries....
