Would a war to protect the enviroment be justified?

[Thalian]

Imagine if you will that in the near future, the United States of America or the People's Republic of China was polluting the air so much, destroying the earth almost beyond repair and was leading to the extinction of hundreds of species through climate change. Would world war be justified against said nation?

[Fus Ro Yay]

do you think any wars are justified?
if yes, then yes to enviroment
if no, no.

edit: any person are allowed to fight for their own right to live. and should anyone fuck up the world so much that your own life is at stake anyone should be allowed to do something about it.

[Asphyxiate9]

If the pollution was going to result in a gloomy end to humanity and they had the power to stop then yes, perhaps it would be justified for it would be a fight for prosperity and survival of the human race. That being said I honestly don't believe such a situation would ever occur.

I don't like war though, and only see it as a final option for this given situation after all other attempts have been made.

[Rucati]

It would probably cause more harm than good to go to war over the environment, let's be honest here. The amount of resources that would get poured into a world war is ridiculous, plus depending on where the wars were fought it could harm the environment even worse than the pollution. Not to mention the fact that if a third world war happens odds are good it'll involve some kind of bombs, and we all know those aren't very friendly to the plants and wildlife in the area they impact.

[Deleted]

No this is retarded. Diplomacy friends.

[Knough]

All out war, no, too risky and dangerous, and ever since we developed anything more deadly than swords and bows, weapons cause a hell of a mess.
Careful and controlled attacks, maybe.
To avoid offending, I'll take the country I live in as the villains.
If Britain for some reason developed a new fuel system that spewed radioactive isotopes everywhere, and we began slaughtering whales for fun with our new-fuel-powered-stuff, and we generally became a bad egg, then it would be justified for someone without any motives apart from the environment to do something, let's say Canada.
So Britain goes evil and polluting:
For a nation which harbours resentment to attack, or for anyone to wage war on us and our shiny-fuel-new-weaponry, bad, but I'd say a friendly nation, Canada, in the example, would be justified to sent over some men, or women, to take out those responsible and shut down our evil villainy.
Anything like "let's just use nuclear weapons and wipe the whole island" would only make it worse.

[Zogarth]

Well nuking everything would fuck it up even more... so all out war would be a pretty bad idea. Would be better to use diplomacy, and refuse to trade with countries doing nothing about the enviroment.

[Underverse]

I would not really support any war

[ddsad2212]

"You cannot declare war on a nation for doing as they see fit.". As opposed to declaring war to take land of them like must wars? If it came to it and they would not stop, yes world war is justified. Its not like there would be a risk to it. I mean the plant was going to be destroy anyway at least this would have a chance to save it assuming nucs don't get launched

[Arkenaw]

Loaded poll is loaded. This is a terrible reason to go to war.

edit: ok, maybe not loaded, but should just be yes/no. I hate poll choices with whole sentences like that in them.

[Deleted]

Yes. Because in your scenario everyone suffers, and in the end, everyone dies. If I have a nuclear reactor and I throw the fallout on your land, would a war be justified? This is the exact scenario put differently. And again, yes.

[Stir]

Yep; biased poll is biased.
I voted 'no' because, unless you wanted to take the good 'ole sword and bow style of war, your war will be far more polluting than that country.

We've got better means: Diplomacy and trade embargos. If they refuse to play along, they can starve and lose out on tech, medicine and all those other things that make it great to be a wealthy country. Only as a last resort (and it had better be pressing) should you invade a country for being overly polluting.

[Nola Saint 504]

You're assuming that pollution leads to global warming?

[Aspect of Death]

Well USA/China don't want to reduce polluting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol and they stand for 18% / 23% of the worlds polluting Co2. If the world would be destroyed if China and USA refused to start reducing, then yes.

[Zoranon]

Well USA/China don't want to reduce polluting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol and they stand for 18% / 23% of the worlds polluting Co2. If the world would be destroyed if China and USA refused to start reducing, then yes.

Yeah, sure it is a great idea to wage war against a country that has hundreds nuclear warheads (China) or even thousands of them (USA). And keep in mind those warheads are much more powerful than the WW2 bombs were.

War against China, Russia or USA will only lead to the end of civilisation and possibly the entire human race. Not to mention that the environment would be pretty much destroyed aswell.

[Deleted]

Since you mention the USA and China, a war between the "big polluters" aside from possibly leading to a nuclear apocalypse would likely cause even more pollution in the process as resources are exploited and squandered.

[Adam Jensen]

Seems a bit counter-intuitive if you ask me. War isn't exactly environmentally friendly itself.

[The Small Hours]

Seems a bit counter-intuitive if you ask me. War isn't exactly environmentally friendly itself.

With current technology I'm sure it's totally possible to have an energy efficient eco-friendly war.

[Aspect of Death]

Yeah, sure it is a great idea to wage war against a country that has hundreds nuclear warheads (China) or even thousands of them (USA). And keep in mind those warheads are much more powerful than the WW2 bombs were.

War against China, Russia or USA will only lead to the end of civilisation and possibly the entire human race. Not to mention that the environment would be pretty much destroyed aswell.

Hahaha good point sir, but Russia will help us... ;(

Seriously though, my point was that i would be willing to start a war to save the planet. If we didn't do anything, planet dies, if we try and fail, planet dies. I would try.

[Zoranon]

Hahaha good point sir, but Russia will help us... ;(

Seriously though, my point was that i would be willing to start a war to save the planet. If we didn't do anything, planet dies, if we try and fail, planet dies. I would try.

IF that were the case, I would rather focus the remaining resources into either:
a) A network of underground shelters, where at least part of the population could survive
b) A spaceship for the same reason

War against a great power would only hasten our demise in such doomsday scenario. Oh and getting Russia involved would only mean the nuclear end would come sooner.