Stephen Nathanson’s argument is wrong because bending backward will make things get worse. Terrorism attacks are a form of violence, and the moral implication is death in the form of revenge. City bombings and collateral damages are contemporary challenges that must be faced with practical guidance. According to the Just War Theory (JWT), the military should work toward controlling violence. The doctrine suggests that national interests come first, and mutual moral obligations must be addressed with realism. Many countries have developed their social, political, and technological realities to remain relevant in relegating duties. JWT’s theoretical framework states that jus ad Bellum is a condition whereby a war must use to initiate its thresholds. For instance, terrorism or any form of collateral damage meets the minimum threshold of jus ad Bellum. Any attack directed at civilians is a form of discrimination, and that nation’s leadership must take proportional action to respond.
Nathanson posits that “bend over backward” should be followed to avoid harming civilian non-combatants. I cannot entirely agree with Nathanson because when there is a form of terrorism, the country must choose realism over rights. A nation might be faced with a just or unjust war based on the attempts made by its government. The principle of discrimination between the combatants and non-combatants must be immunized by amplifying the focal point when the contempt forms a moral justification for overriding the principle of jus in bello, the code changes regarding civilian rights resulting in iconic realism. Realism is a form of acceptance that everyone on the battlefield is a civilian with their families. Whenever there is an eruption of any state, people with a clean conscience will clear from the area of interest. Therefore, the remaining individuals are against humanitarian rights, and there is a need for the military to respond appropriately.
Nonetheless, systemic tension overrides moral idealism, and the principle of noncombat immunity can amount to moral obligations. The force of reaction by the target state must weigh between actual aggression and ethical preventive intervention. The preventive intervention uses intelligence to fish out the culprits before the actualization of war, while aggression is used when collateral damage has occurred. Intelligence is used where the states are interconnected, and there is an existence of balanced power. When one state rises above the other in terms of military force, it upsets the balance and leads to aggressive attempts. Preventive intervention is a form of self-defense or proactive self-defense. Moral justifiability can replace assimilative prevention because the preemption of the military can respond to the imminent attack. Mostly, terrorists are not handled like domestic, and the state must distinguish them from the rest of the citizens because they are interpersonal aggressors.
Furthermore, terrorism conflicts are not formalized in international law in terms of war justification. Functional extrapolation is entitled to corresponding legal actions because actions should be taken before or immediately after the terrorism act. Nathanson posits that it is better to leave terrorists rather than affect civilians. I disagree with the ideology because terrorists and collateral damage are out to destroy people’s lives. At times, terrorists seek cultural revenge that has nothing to do with the state. Their revenge style is bombing and killing a mass of people. Therefore, it is unjustifiable to refrain from attacking them in the name of affecting civilians. Saving civilians from future attacks start by handling such terrorists with force required.