# Is it OK to go to war for economic reasons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296 "2006-03-21T15:52:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/1 "2006-03-21T15:52:54Z")
Some analysts have recently floated the idea that “the real reason” Iran is in the Bush Admin.'s crosshairs is because Iran plans to open a Euro-denominated oil bourse, which could significantly cut into the ubiquitous petrodollar market, encourage more nations to divest themselves of dollars, and lead to a financial crash in the USA. (Others counter that this is hogwash, and that Iran has been a black eye for Washington ever since the Revolution and its accompanying hostage crisis, and that the USA and Israel have long been looking for an excuse to topple the theocratic government. Many also question the assumption that such a bourse would hurt the US economy as much as asserted.) Whatever the ACTUAL reasons Iran is in the hot seat–be they economic threat, historical grudge, strategic location as a base of future operations, oil control, actual nuclear threat, etc.–it does raise an interesting question: Is it justifiable to go to war over purely economic reasons? If Country A knows that County B is going to engage in some perfectly legal activity that will, nonetheless, lead to economic disaster in Country A, is Country A justified in attacking Country B to prevent this activity and protect their “national interests”? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/2 "2006-03-21T15:58:34Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Is it justifiable to go to war over purely economic reasons? > > If Country A knows that County B is going to engage in some perfectly legal activity that will, nonetheless, lead to economic disaster in Country A, is Country A justified in attacking Country B to prevent this activity and protect their “national interests”? No. If I’m going to lose my job because my employer is being outcompeted, is it justifiable for me to walk into the rival’s shop and open fire with a machine gun ? Same thing, different scale. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/3 "2006-03-21T16:01:11Z")
Only if it’s “OK/justifiable” to violate a [promise not to](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/). This talk of “national interest” has always puzzled me. My actions are not justified solely by my _self_ interests, and a corporations action aren’t justified solely by its _corporate_ interests. How come nation states are absolved of acting morally? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/4 "2006-03-21T16:18:51Z")
[Waging aggressive war ( I )](http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/Speeches_About_WhitneyHarris_Tyranny/) [Waging aggressive war ( II )](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East) [Waging aggressive war ( III )](http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/nuremberg/indictments.html) > [@](#): > > … > The question arose whether the initiating of aggressive war, in general, should be charged as criminal, or whether the aggression count should be restricted to acts in violation of specific treaties, agreements or assurances. The latter viewpoint had more the indicia of a contractual than a criminal violation. Obtaining a judicial declaration that the initiating and waging of a war of aggression was a crime in international law was to Justice Jackson an issue of such supreme importance that he would have foregone the trial rather than surrender this principle. Other representatives were less concerned since in most cases Hitler’s aggressions had violated specific treaties, agreements, or assurances. Moreover, the charge against heads of state for waging aggressive war was unique in international law and to the French, at least, carried the opprobrium of ex post facto legislation. > > In opposing the inclusion of the charge of aggressive war the French representative declared that “the Americans want to win the trial on the ground that the Nazi war was illegal, and the French people and other people of the occupied territories just want to show that the Nazis were bandits.” But Justice Jackson insisted that, ex post facto or not, the issue of the criminality of heads of state who initiate wars of aggression should be adjudicated in the proceeding. His argument prevailed, and in the final draft of the Charter, “the planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression” was declared to be a crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. > … > [@](#): > > … > To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; \*\*it is the supreme international crime, \*\*differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” > … Summary: No. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/5 "2006-03-21T16:35:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This talk of “national interest” has always puzzled me. My actions are not justified solely by my _self_ interests, and a corporations action aren’t justified solely by its _corporate_ interests. How come nation states are absolved of acting morally? There’s a theory in international affairs called realism, which says that the world system is fundamentally anarchic, and that all nations do, and should act in their best interests…that you can’t talk about legality or morality on the international state. This point of view is explained by Thucydides in his “Peloponnesian Wars”, and this quote best encapsulates the realist position. To set up the quote, by this point in the book, the war between Athens and Sparta has already started, and the island of Melos, even though it had been allied to Sparta in the past, has declared its neutrality in the war. The Athenians send an army to the Mellians and demand they surrender or be destroyed. The Mellians tell them that they’re neutral and have never hurt Athens, and that this demand of the Athens is morally wrong. The Athenians answer (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > [W]e hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians {the Spartans], although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that **right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they canand the weak suffer what they must**. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/6 "2006-03-21T16:46:35Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Is it justifiable to go to war over purely economic reasons? This is somewhat of a loaded question as I sense you are minimizing the potential economic damage can create. What if Country A engages in a hostile economic action that is designed specifically to weaken Country B? How about defending one’s economic interests abroad? Or a dispute over the rights to vital natural resources? Say I am the president of Country A and I dam up a river that’s the only source of water that leads to Country B? Are the citizens of B required to go without water? I think you will find that the root cause of most conflicts are economic. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/7 "2006-03-21T16:51:30Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Is it justifiable to go to war over purely economic reasons? Morally speaking? _Probably_ not. Realpolitik speaking? Again, probably not. In the past I think wars could successfully be fought over a desire to gain economic advantage. In the modern world, wars cost so much money whatever economic gain might come from then won’t come close to covering the cost of the war. One reason the “no blood for oil” argument always rang hollow. There was never a meaningful chance the Iraqi war was going to be economically benefitial to the United States. > [@](#): > > If Country A knows that County B is going to engage in some perfectly legal activity that will, nonetheless, lead to economic disaster in Country A, is Country A justified in attacking Country B to prevent this activity and protect their “national interests”? By inserting the word legal you make this an impossible situation to argue about, because legally speaking nothing is really fully fleshed out when it comes to international relations. We have treaties, and while most countries respect treaties as law, there isn’t any overriding authority that makes that the case. A government can violate a treaty at will without too much non-violent recourse being available. While if an individual person violates a law there are tons of ways to deal with that. When FDR put his embargoes of the Japanese in place, that was, legal or not, probably sufficient casus belli for the Japanese. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/8 "2006-03-21T16:52:26Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Say I am the president of Country A and I dam up a river that’s the only source of water that leads to Country B? Are the citizens of B required to go without water? That’s not economic, that’s survival. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/9 "2006-03-21T16:57:47Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > There’s a theory in international affairs called realism, which says that the world system is fundamentally anarchic, and that all nations do, and should act in their best interests…that you can’t talk about legality or morality on the international state. True. But there is such thing as international law, and it gives that theory no support or credence whatsoever. I hope the community of nations has evolved beyond accepting the “realist” attitudes of Thucydides, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler as justifying, well, **anything.** ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/10 "2006-03-21T17:08:13Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > There’s a theory in international affairs called realism, which says that the world system is fundamentally anarchic, and that all nations do, and should act in their best interests…that you can’t talk about legality or morality on the international state. Well, yeah, but there’s a fair number of realists who do not believe realism to be a prescriptive philosophy (“Nations MUST NOT act ethically”), but rather simply descriptive (“In the end, nations balance costs and benefits”). Back to the idea that we’re going to go to war in Iran because of the Euro: just pu just hogwash – no more realistic than some nonsense that Lyndon LaRouche and his fellow cultists might spew. Surely, nations have gone to war for primarily economic reasons… I’d say Gulf War I comes reasonably close… (although I can’t think of a “purely” economic case for war, but the Opium Wars of the 19th century in China seems to be a well-known example that fits the bill pretty darn close.) I’d imagine that the ethics of these cases is more judged on the pretext of the economics rather than the fact that the economics may (or may not) have been a prime motiviation: In other words, it’s a petty point to argue that Britain acted unethically in going to war with China because of economics, when the more important point is that Britain went to war to continue to push drugs onto the Chinese people. If a country is doing something extraordinary and outside the norms of international behavior to undermine another country, war can be a legitimate response, so long as the nation beginning the military response is itself acting within norms of international behavior. For example, if Canada starts printing huge amounts of fake US currency and using it as an explicit means among to destroy our economy, then yes, I can see that a proportional military response could be justified. However, if Europe institutes in trade policies that really harms US farmers, but those trade policies are within reasonable norms of international, governmental, and market behavior, no recourse to arms would be justified. You can’t punish people for lawful actions just because you don’t like the result. But again, the idea that the US is going to invade Iran because of a currency issue is just friggin’ kooky. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/11 "2006-03-21T17:16:30Z")
Groan. “Just pure hogwash… Europe institutes trade policies…” I had to wait like 10 mintues for that last thing to post, and I still had dumb typos. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/12 "2006-03-21T17:26:11Z")
I know I’m a bit of a simpleton, but isn’t all U.S. war waged for economic reasons at its foundation? I’ve always been taught that the revolutionary war was fought against “Taxation without Representation”, the Civil War was about aligning the entire country with the Northern economy, World War’s I and II were to protect trade partners, Vietnam was to protect capitalism against creeping communism, the First Gulf War was about oil, and the New Gulf War is to restore economic confidence after 9/11 and oil. What major war have we been in that isn’t economic? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/13 "2006-03-21T17:28:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > True. But there is such thing as international law, and it gives that theory no support or credence whatsoever. Well, like the Athenians said, “Right is only in question between equals in power.”. There is international law, but it only exists insomuch as nations want to enforce it. The Nazis at Nuremburg weren’t imprisoned or executed for invading Poland and trying to exterminate the Jews, horrific and evil though those actions were. The Nazis at Nuremburg were imprisoned and excuted because they lost, while the Soviets, who also engaged in genocide and aggressive war during the same time period, were among the jurors. It’s the same way today. A country can break international law, can go against the decisions of the UN, and so long as they’re powerful or have powerful friends, nothing will happen to them. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/14 "2006-03-21T17:59:29Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > the Civil War was about aligning the entire country with the Northern economy No, not really. Why would the northern states want the southern states to compete with them in manufactured goods? The Civil War was about slavery and states’ rights. > [@](#): > > World War’s I and II were to protect trade partners We traded with the Central and Axis powers, too. It would have been more profitable just to sit back and arm both sides if that were a reason. > [@](#): > > and the New Gulf War is to restore economic confidence after 9/11 and oil. That’s a new one. Restore economic confidence? I’d maybe buy that if the clowns running the show hadn’t been advocating an invasion of Iraq since the late 90s when the economy was still chugging along quite nicely. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/15 "2006-03-21T18:24:37Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > A country can break international law, can go against the decisions of the UN, and so long as they’re powerful or have powerful friends, nothing will happen to them. I presume you mean “nothing will happen to them” in terms of being invaded and having leaders put on trial and such, and not about any other kind of consequences? Surely you can’t be saying that the United States is as trusted and as favorably viewed after the debacle of invading Iraq? The US has isolated itself from the world, resulting in minimal assistance from our closest friends in the occupation of Iraq, virtually all war costs being borne alone by the US, run into a shortage of options on Iran and North Korea, and growing anti-American and anti-Western sentiment that has reversed any successes we have had in the so-called war on terrorism. We are distanced from our allies, and therefore our influence and power has been weakened, and that is a real, if intangible, effect of the Iraq war. I think quite a lot has happened to the standing of the US in the world in the aftermath of an unjustified and illegal invasion of Iraq. Yes, we haven’t been blockaded by a UN Navy or something, but the US certainly is dealing with a number of consequences as a result of flouting international law. (Also, I’m curious as to why you’re fixated on Thucydides as being the last and only word on realism. A hell of a lot has happened in the field of international relations in the last 2,500 years. Even Hans Frickin’ Morgenthau, who literally wrote the book on 20th century realist theory, acknowledged that the pursuit of power by states is often tempered by the moral views of the state. Discussions on diplomacy and war that simply revolve around an account of a Greek war more than two millenia ago are no more enlightening about the topic than a discussion of English literature in which nobody refers to anyone but Shakespeare.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/16 "2006-03-21T18:33:55Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > I know I’m a bit of a simpleton, but isn’t all U.S. war waged for economic reasons at its foundation? I’ve always been taught that the revolutionary war was fought against “Taxation without Representation” Hardly. The colonies were quite prosperous, perhaps even more so than Britain. That prosperity contributed in large part, and may even have caused, the sentiment that they deserved as much control over their own affairs. > [@](#): > > the Civil War was about aligning the entire country with the Northern economy Funny, almost everyone at the time seems to have thought it was about slavery. > [@](#): > > World War’s I and II were to protect trade partners Japan and Germany had some economic motives, sure, but their leaders’ desire for empire just might have had a lot more to do with it. > [@](#): > > Vietnam was to protect capitalism against creeping communism, the First Gulf War was about oil Those do have merit. > [@](#): > > and the New Gulf War is to restore economic confidence after 9/11 and oil. Wars aren’t known for restoring economic confidence. The 9/11 connection is a lie, chosen as a marketing tactic for a war decided upon for real reasons that Bush still has not come clean about but which can be understood by researching “Project for a New American Century”. Certainly wars can and often do have economic motivations among their causes, but to dismiss them all as being nothing more than that misses quite a lot. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/17 "2006-03-21T18:57:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Hardly. The colonies were quite prosperous, perhaps even more so than Britain. That prosperity contributed in large part, and may even have caused, the sentiment that they deserved as much control over their own affairs. I guess it depends on how you define “prosperous.” Britain had dumped tons of cash and military might into the colonies during the 100+ previous years to get them off the ground, and were finally hoping that their investment would pay them back some. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/18 "2006-03-21T19:30:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > (although I can’t think of a “purely” economic case for war, but the Opium Wars of the 19th century in China seems to be a well-known example that fits the bill pretty darn close.) Actually, I think any of the wars that were about conquest and loot would qualify, conquest essentially being the theft of a whole country at once. > [@Ravenman](#): > > (But again, the idea that the US is going to invade Iran because of a currency issue is just friggin’ kooky. Kooky or not, it’s not new; I heard the same thing claimed before the invasion of Iraq before we invaded them. I’m sure the people who believe this theory will take that as evidence they’re right. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/19 "2006-03-21T20:47:51Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That’s not economic, that’s survival. I don’t see the difference. Economics isn’t just about “money”. It’s about distributing the resources people need - food, fuel, water, medical care. In a sense, everything comes back to economics. World War II was a direct result of the economic consequences inflicted upon Germany after their defeat in WWI. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296/20 "2006-03-21T20:56:51Z")
Here’s a thought for those who scream “no war for oil”. Is a small war to secure oil supplies preferable to the collapse of and entire industrial society? Keep in mind you will have to actually live in that society. Or to look at it from the opposite side: Is it justifyable to go to war if a nations economic policies are forcing your country into poverty? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-go-to-war-for-economic-reasons/349296.md?page=2)